UC-NRLF 


T  ,  ^     y  -^  '^.^  -^  ^  ^.^   -^  -^  ^   ^   ^   ^.r^   '^   ^   -^.-"f"  -^   ^   ^.""^  -^   -^   ^,^ 


CiVIli 


G0VERHME14T 


HND 


HEliIGIOH. 


</'    -^^   ^B'   ■^Ih   ^P"    ^^   •*^,  ■^'*'    ■^^    '^>'    -^^    ^1^   •^^   -"^^    ■^^   -^^    ^1^   ■^^   -***■   '■*.>•    "^^   ■^^   ''^    -^^    •^^    -S^   ^^   -^^   •^^ 


,>  -^  ^^^  ^  ^  ^  ^ >^  ^ 


-^  -fS^  1^   '^  '^  '^•'^   '^  -its'  ^   •<$>  "^  'Sfi'   'i^ 


■<5y    r^    x^    -^    "^    -^ 


GIFT  OF 
Class  of  1900 


.^-H'/' 


/>      t   C->r'-^t>    Tiv* 


[p:f/www.arCTwe.org/aetairs/civngovernmenTruujonerici 


CIVIL  GOVERNMENT 


AND 


RELiaiON, 


OR 


t 


Christianity  and    thk   Aivikrican 
constitution. 


By   ALONZO   T.   JON  ES. 


AMERICAN  SENTINEL, 

1059  Castro  St.,  Oakland,  Cal.;  43  Bond  St.,  New  York.; 

26  AND  28  College  Place,  Chicago,  III. 

1880. 


CO?^^\CiV\^^^  \?>?>'a  ^^  k\-0H10  ^.  iOH^S. 


QLVs^  k  ^y 


•    > 

a    •     •        •     .^        • 


PREFACE 


This  little  work  is  the  outgrowth  of  several  lectures  upon 
the  relationship  between  religion  and  the  civil  power,  delivered 
in  Minneapolis,  Minn.,  in  October,  1888.  The  interest  man- 
ifested in  the  subject,  and  numerous  requests  for  the  publi- 
cation of  the  main  points  of  the  arguments  presented,  have  led 
to  the  issuing  of  this  pamphlet.  It  is  not  intended  to  be  exhaust- 
ive in  its  discussion  of  any  point  upon  which  it  treats,  but 
only  suggestive  in  all.  The  subject  is  always  interesting  and  im- 
portant, and  as  there  is  now  a  persistent  demand  being  made  for 
religious  legislation,  especially  in  relation  to  Sunday-keeping, 
this  subject  has  become  worthy  of  more  careful  study  than  it 
has  ever  received  in  this  country  since  the  adoption  of  the 
national  Constitution.  The  quotations  and  references  pre- 
sented, with  connecting  arguments,  are  designed  simply  to 
furnish  the  reader  a  ready  reference,  and  directions  to  further 
study  of  the  subject.  It  is  hoped  that  the  facts  presented  will 
awaken  more  interest  in  the  study  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  may  lead  to  a  better  understanding  of  men's 
rights  and  liberties  under  it,  than  is  commonly  shown  ;  and  also 
to  a  closer  study  of  the  relation  that  should  exist  between  civil 
government  and  religion,  according  to  the  words  of  Christ  and 
the  American  Constitution.  a.  t.  j. 

Feb.  ij,  1889. 


(3) 


QQOf^^^ 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER   I. 


Christianity  and  the  Roman  Empire.  — The  Gospel  of  Liberty  —  The 
Roman  Rehgion  exalted  the  Power  of  the  State  —  The  Rites  of  the 
Roman  Worship — Martyrs  to  Roman  Power      ....  5~^S 

CHAPTER   II. 

What  is  due  to  God,  and  What  to  C^sar  ?  —  Moral  Law  and  Civil 
Law  Compared  —  Sin  and  Crime  Defined  —  God  the  only  Moral  Gov- 
ernor—  The  Principle  expressed  by  Christ  is  the  Principle  embodied 
in  the  American  Constitution      .......  14-27 

CHAPTER   III. 

The  Powers  that  Be. — An  Exposition  of  Romans  13  :  i  by  Examples 
from  Holy  Writ  —  How  earthly  Governments  are  ordained  of  God  — 
The  power  of  Rulers  limited  by  the  Will  of  the  People       .         .         28-43 

CHAPTER    IV. 

The  Religious  Attack  upon  the  United  States  Constitution, 
and  Those  who  are  making  It. — Proposed  Amendment  to  the 
Constitution,  respecting  the  Establishments  of  Religion  and  Free  Pub- 
lic Schools  —  Its  Fallacy  Exposed  —  Quotations  from  National  Re- 
formers—  What  they  want  to  see  in  our  Government         .         .         43-64 

CHAPTER   V. 

Religious  Legislation. — The  Proposed  National  Sunday  Law — The 
Sunday  Law  Arraigned — What  would  be  the  Result  of  its  becoming 
Law — The  Sunday  Law  Unconstitutional  and  Antichristian  .  65-77 

CHAPTER  VI. 

The  Sunday-Law  Movement  in  the  Fourth  Century,  and  its  Par- 
allel IN  the  Nineteenth. — The  Development  of  the  Papacy  — 
The  Papacy  a  false  Theocracy  —  Constantine's  Sunday  Law  —  The 
Church  secures  the  Aid  of  the  State  to  enforce  It  —  Resulted  in  the 
Inquisition  —  The  Present  Demand  for  a  Theocracy  —  The  Power  of 
the  State  sought  for  the  Support  of  Religion  — What  will  be  sacrified 
to  secure  It        ..........       78-110 

CHAPTER  VII. 
The  Workings  of  a  Sunday  Law. — The  Arkansas  Cases — The  Su- 
preme Court  Decision  —  Repeal  of  the  Law — Some  Facts  worthy  of 
Notice  in  the  Arkansas  Indictments  .         .         .         .         .         .111-150 

Appendixes  A,  B,  C,  D 151-176 

(4) 


CIVIL  GOVERNMENT  AND  RELIGION. 


CHAPTER  I. 

CHRISTIANITY   AND   THE    ROMAN   EMPIRE. 

Jesus  Christ  came  into  the  wqrlKi;to^et.  men; f/:d<^,  and 
to  plant  in  their  souls  the  genuine  principle  of  liberty, — 
liberty  actuated  by  love, — liberty/ioo  hooiorable  ;tc1  "al'l.^w 
itself  to  be  used  as  an  occasion  to  the  flesh,  or  for  a  cloak 
of  maliciousness,  —  liberty  led  by  a  conscience  enlightened 
by  the  Spirit  of  God,  —  liberty  in  which  man  may  be  free 
from  all  men,  yet  made  so  gentle  by  love  that  he  would 
willingly  become  the  servant  of  all,  in  order  to  bring  them 
to  the  enjoyment  of  this  same  liberty.  This  is  freedom  in- 
deed. This  is  the  freedom  which  Christ  gave  to  man  ;  for 
whom  the  Son  makes  free,  is  free  indeed.  In  giving  to 
men  this  freedom,  such  an  infinite  gift  could  have  no  other 
result  than  that  which  Christ  intended  ;  namely,  to  bind 
them  in  everlasting,  unquestioning,  unswerving  allegiance 
to  him  as  the  royal  benefactor  of  the  race.  He  thus  re- 
veals himself  to  men  as  the  highest  good,  and  brings  them 
to  himself  as  the  manifestation  of  that  highest  good,  and 
to  obedience  to  his  will  as  the  perfection  of  conduct. 
Jesus  Christ  was  God  manifest  in  the  flesh.  Thus  God  was 
in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  to  himself,  that  they  might 
know  him,  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  he 
sent.  He  gathered  to"  himself  disciples,  instructed  them 
in  his  heavenly  doctrine,  endued  them  with  power  from 
on  high,  sent  them  forth  into  all  the  world  to  preach  this 
gospel  of  freedom  to  every  creature,  and  to  teach  them 

(5) 


6  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

to   observe    all   things   whatsoever   he    had    commanded 
them. 

The  Roman  empire  then  filled  the  world, —  *'the  sub- 
limest  incarnation  of  power,  and  a  monument  the  might- 
iest of  greatness  built  by  human  hands,  which  has  upon 
this  planet  been  suffered  to  appear."  That  empire,  proud 
of  its  conquests,  and  exceedingly  jealous  of  its  claims,  as- 
serted its  right  to  rule  in  all  things,  human  and  divine.  As 
in  those  times  all  gods  were  viewed  as  national  gods,  and 
as  Rome  had  conquered  all  nations,  it  was  demonstrated 
by  tfcs  to  the,  Jtotaans  that  their  gods  were  superior  to  all 
others.,  ^n^,  although -Rome  allowed  conquered  nations 
to'fiJiii'i>  t^aiii,  the.  wotsijip- of  their  national  gods,  these,  as 
well  as  the  conquered  people,  were  yet  considered  only  as 
servants  of  the  Roman  States.  Every  religion,  therefore, 
was  held  subordinate  to  the  religion  of  Rome,  and  though 
''all  forms  of  religion  might  come  to  Rome  and  take  their 
places  in  its  Pantheon,  they  must  come  as  the  servants  of 
the  State."  The  Roman  religion  itself  was  but  the  servant 
of  the  State  ;  and  of  all  the  gods  of  Rome  there  were  none 
so  great  as  the  genius  of  Rome  itself.  The  chief  distinc- 
tion of  the  Roman  gods  was  that  they  belonged  to  the  Ro- 
man State.  Instead  of  the  State  deriving  any  honor  from 
the  Roman  gods,  the  gods  derived  their  principle  dignity 
from  the  fact  that  they  were  the  gods  of  Rome.  This  be- 
ing so  with  Rome's  own  gods,  it  was  counted  by  Rome 
an  act  of  exceeding  condescension  to  recognize  legally  any 
foreign  godj  or  the  right  of  any  Roman  subject  to  worship 
any  other  gods  than  those  of  Rome.  Neander  quotes 
Cicero  as  laying  down  a  fundamental  maxim  of  legislation 
as  follows  :  — 

''No  man  shall  have  for  himself  particular  gods  of  his 
own  ;  no  man  shall  worship  by  himself  any  new  or  foreign 
gods,  unless  they  are  recognized  by  the  public  laws."  — 
Neander  s  Church  History,  vol.  1,  pp.  '^^^  87.  Torrey's 
translation,  Boston,  1852. 


CHRISTIANITY    AND    THE    ROMAN    EMPIRE.  7 

Thus  it  is  seen  that  in  the  Roman  view,  the  State  took 
precedence  of  everything.  The  State  was  the  highest  idea 
of  good.    As  expressed  by  Neander  :  — 

-  "The  idea  of  the  State  was  the  highest  idea  of  ethics  ; 
and  within  that  was  included  all  actual  realization  of  the 
highest  good  ;  hence  the  development  of  all  other  goods 
pertaining  to  humanity,  was  made  dependent  on  this."  — 
Id.  p.  86. 

Man  with  all  that  he  had  was  subordinated  to  the  State  ; 
he  must  have  no  higher  aim  ;  he  must  seek  no  higher  good. 
Thus  every  Roman  citizen  was  a  subject,  and  every 
Roman  subject  was  a  slave.     Says  Mommsen  :  — 

*'The  more  distinguished  a  Romanbecame,  the  less  was 
he  a  free  man.  The  omnipotence  of  the  law,  the  despot- 
ism of  the  rule,  drove  him  into  a  narrow  circle  of  thought 
and  action,  and  his  credit  and  influence  depended  on  the 
sad  austerity  of  his  life.  The  whole  duty  of  man,  with  the 
humblest  and  greatest  of  the  Romans,  was  to  keep  his  house 
in  order,  and  be  the  obedient  servant  of  the  State." 

It  will  be  seen  at  once  that  for  any  man  to  profess  the 
principles  and  the  name  of  Christ,  was  virtually  to  set  him- 
self against  the  Roman  empire  ;  for  him  to  recognize  God 
as  revealed  in  Jesus  Christ  as  the  highest  good,  was  but 
treason  against  the  Roman  State.  It  would  not  be  looked 
upon  by  Rome  as  anything  else  than  high  treason,  because 
the  Roman  State  representing  to  the  Roman  the  highest 
idea  of  good,  for  any  man  to  assert  that  there  was  a  higher 
good,  and  thus  make  Rome  itself  subordinate,  would  not 
be  looked  upon  in  any  other  light  by  Roman  pride  than 
that  such  an  assertion  was  a  direct  blow  at  the  dignity  of 
Rome,  and  subversive  of  the  Roman  State.  Consequently 
the  Christians  were  not  only  called  "  atheists,"  because 
they  denied  the  gods,  but  the  accusation  against  them 
before  the'  tribunals  was  for  the  crime  of  "  high  treason," 
because  they  denied  the  right  of  the  State  to  interfere  with 
men's    relations  to  God.     The    accusation  was  that  they 


O  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

were    "  irreverent   to    the    Caesars,    and    enemies    of    the 
Caesars  and  of  the  Roman  people." 

To  the  Christian,  the  word  of  God  asserted  with  absolute 
authority  :  **  Fear  God,  and  keep  his  commandments  ;  for 
this  is  the  whole  duty  of  man."  Eccl.  12  :  13.  To  him,  obe- 
dience to  this  word  through  faith  in  Christ,  was  eternal  life. 
This  to  him  was  the  conduct  which  showed  his  allegiance 
to  God  as  the  highest  good,  — a  good  as  much  higher  than 
that  of  the  Roman  State  as  the  government  of  God  is 
greater  than  was  the  government  of  Rome,  as  God  is 
greater  than  man,  as  heaven  is  higher  than  earth,  as  eter- 
nity is  more  than  time,  and  as  eternal  interests  are  of  more 
value  than  temporal. 

The  Romans  considered  themselves  not  only  the  great- 
est of  all  nations  and  the  one  to  whom  belonged  power 
over  all,  but  they  prided  themselves  upon  being  the  most 
religious  of  all  nations.  Cicero  commended  the  Romans 
as  the  most  religious  of  all  nations,  because  they  carried 
their  religion  into  all  the  details  of  life. 

"The  Roman  ceremonial  worship  was  very  elaborate 
and  minute,  applying  to  every  part  of  daily  life.  It  con- 
sisted in  sacrifices,  prayers,  festivals,  and  the  investiga- 
tions, by  auguries  and  haruspices,  of  the  will  of  the  gods 
and  the  course  of  future  events.  The  Romans  accounted 
themselves  an  exceedingly  religious  people,  because  their 
religion  was  so  intimately  connected  with  the  affairs  of 
home  and  State.  .  .  .  Thus  religion  everywhere  met  the 
public  life  of  the  Roman  by  its  festivals,  and  laid  an  equal 
yoke  on  his  private  life  by  its  requisition  of  sacrifices, 
prayers,'  and  auguries.  AH  pursuits  must  be  conducted 
according  to  a  system  carefully  laid  clown  by  the  College 
of  Pontiffs.  ...  If  a  man  went  out  to  walk,  there  was  a 
form  to  be  recited  ;  if  he  mounted  his  chariot,  another." 
—  Ten  Great  Religions^  chap.  8. 

The  following  extract  from  Gibbon  will  give  a  clear 
view  of  the  all-pervading  character  of  the  Roman  relig- 


CHRISTIANITY    AND    THE    ROMAN    EMPIRE.  9 

ious    rites  and  ceremonies,  and  it  also  shows  how  aoso- 
lutely   the   profession   of  the    Christian    religion  made  a 
separation    between    the    ope  who    professed    it    and    all— 
thiogs  pertaining  to  the  affairs  of  Rome  :  — 

"The  religion  of  the  nations  was  not  merely  a  spec- 
ulative doctrine  professed  *in  the  schools  or  preached  in 
the  temples.  The  innumerable  deities  and  rites  of  Poly- 
theism were  closely  interwoven  with  every  circumstance 
of  business  or  pleasure,  of  public  or  of  private  life  ;  and 
it  seemed  impossible  to  escape  the  observance  of  them, 
without,  at  the  same  time,  renouncing  the  commerce  of 
mankind  and  all  the  offices  and  amusements  of  society. 
.  .  .  The  public  spectacles  were  an  essential  part  of  the 
cheerful  devotion  of  the  pagans,  and  the  gods  were  sup- 
posed to  accept,  as  the  most  grateful  offering,  the  games 
that  the  prince  and  people  celebrated  in  honor  of  their 
peculiar  customs.  The  Christian,  who  with  pious  horror 
avoided  the  abomination  of  the  circus  or  the  theater, 
found  himself  encompassed  with  infernal  snares  in  every 
convivial  entertainment,  as  often  as  his  friends,  invoking 
the  hospitable  deities,  poured  out  libations  to  each  others' 
happiness.  When  the  bride,  struggling  with  well-affected 
reluctance,  was  forced  in  hymenial  pomp  over  the  thresh- 
old of  her  new  habitation,  or  when  the  sad  procession  of 
the  dead  slowly  moved  toward  the  funeral  pile,  the  Chris- 
tian, on  these  interesting  occasions,  was  compelled  to 
desert  the  persons  who  were  dearest  to  him,  rather  than 
contract  the  guilt  inherent  to  those  impious  ceremonies. 
Every  art  and  every  trade  that  was  in  the  least  concerned 
in  the  framing  or  adorning  of  idols,  was  polluted  by  the 
stain  of  idolatry. 

"The  dangerous  temptations  which  on  every  side 
lurked  in  ambush  to  surprise  the  unguarded  believer, 
assailed  him  with  redoubled  violence  on  the  day  of  sol- 
emn festivals.  So  artfully  were  they  framed  and  disposed 
throughout  the  year,  that  superstition  always  wore  the 
appearance  of  pleasure,  and  often  of  virtue.  ..  .  .  On  the 
days  of  general  festivity,  it  was  the  custom  of  the  an- 
cients to  adorn  their  doors  with  lamps  and  with  branches 
of  laurel,  and  to  crown  their  heads  with  garlands  of  flow- 


10  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

ers.  This  innocent  and  elegant  practice  might  have  been 
tolerated  as  a  mere  civil  institution.  But  it  most  un- 
luckily happened  that  the  doors  were  under  the  protec- 
tion of  the  household  gods,  that  the  laurel  was  sacred  to 
the  lover  of  Daphne,  and  that  garlands  of  flowers,  though 
frequently  worn  as  a  symbol  either  of  joy  or  mourning, 
had  been  dedicated  in  their  first  origin  to  the  service  of 
superstition.  The  trembling  Christians  who  were  per- 
suaded in  this  instance  to  comply  with  the  fashions  of 
their  country  and  the  commands  of  the  magistrates,  la- 
bored under  the  most  gloomy  apprehensions  from  the 
reproaches  of  their  own  conscience,  the  censures  of  the 
church,  and    the  denunciations  of  divine  vengeance." 

All  this  clearly  shows  that  to  profess  the  name  of 
Christ,  a  person  was  compelled  to  renounce  every  other 
relationship  in  life.  He  could  not  attend  a  wedding  or  a 
funeral  of  his  nearest  relatives,  because  every  ceremony 
was  performed  with  reference  to  the  gods.  He  could  not 
attend  the  public  festival,  for  the  same  reason.  More 
than  this,  he  could  not  escape  by  not  attending  the  pub- 
lic festival  ;  because  on  days  of  public  festivity,  the  doors 
of  the  houses,  and  the  lamps  about  them,  and  the  heads 
of  the  dwellers  therein,  must  all  be  adorned  with  laurel 
and  garlands  of  flowers,  in  Tionor  of  the  licentious  gods 
and  godesses  of  Rome.  If  the  Christian  took  part  in 
these  services,  he  paid  honor  to  the  gods  as  did  the  other 
heathen.  If  he  refused  to  do  so,  which  he  must  do  if  he 
would  obey  God  and  honor  Christ,  he  made  himself  con- 
spicuous before  the  eyes  of  all  the  people,  all  of  whom 
were  intensely  jealous  of  the  respect  they  thought  due  to 
the  gods  ;  and  also  in  so  doing,  the  Christian  disobeyed 
the  Roman  law,  which  commanded  these  things  to  be 
done.  He  thus  became  subject  to  persecution,  and  that 
meant  death,  because  the  law  said  :  — 

"Worship  the  gods  in  all  respects  according  to  the 
laws  of  your  country,  and    compel    all  others  to  do  the 


CHRISTIANITY    AND    THE    ROMAN    EMPIRE.  11 

same.     But  hate  and  punish  those  who  would  introduce 
anything  whatever  alien  to  our  customs  in  this  particular."^ 

And  further  :  — 

**  Whoever  introduces  new  religions,  the  tendency  and 
character  of  which  are  unknown,  whereby  the  minds  of 
men  may  be  disturbed,  shall,  if  belonging  to  the  higher 
rank,  be  banished;  if  to  the  lower,  punished  with  death." 

This  was  the  Roman  law.  Every  Christian,  merely  by 
the  profession  of  Christianity,  severed  himself  from  all  the 
gods  of  Rom'e,  and  from  everything  that  was  done  in  their 
honor.  And  everything  ivas  done  in  their  honor.  The 
great  mass  of  the  first  Christians  were  from  the  lower 
ranks  of  the  people.  The  law  said  that  if  any  of  the  lower 
ranks  introduced  new  religions,  they  should  be  punished 
with  death.  The  Christians,  introducing  a  new  religion, 
and  being  from  the  lower  ranks,  made  themselves  subject 
to  death  whenever  they  adopted  the  religion  of  Christ, 
This  is  why  Paul  and  Peter,  and  multitudes  of  other 
Christians,  suffered  death  for  the  name  of  Christ.  Such 
was  the  Roman  law,  and  when  Rome  put  the  Christians 
to  death,  it  was  not  counted  by  Rome  to  be  persecution. 
It  would  not  for  an  instant  be  admitted  that  such  was 
persecution.  It  was  only  enforcing  the  law.  The  State 
of  Rome  was  supreme.  The  State  ruled  in  religious 
things.  Whoever  presumed  to  disobey  the  law  must 
suffer  the  penalty  ;  all  that  Rome  did,  all  that  it  professed 
to  do,  was  simply  to  enforce  the  law. 

If  the  principle  be  admitted  that  the  State  has  the 
right  to  legislate  in  regard  to  religion,  and  to  enforce 
religious  observances,  then  no  blame  can  ever  be  attached 
to  the  Roman  empire  for  putting  the  Christians  to  death. 
Nor  can  it  be  admitted  that  such  dealings  with  the  Chris- 
tians was  persecution.  The  enforcement  of  right  laws  can 
never  be  persecution,  however  severely  the,  law  may  deal 
with  the  offender.     To  hang  a  murderer  is  not  persecu- 


12  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

tion.  To  hunt  him  down,  even  with  blood-hounds,  to 
bring  him  to  justice,  is  not  persecution.  We  repeat, 
therefore,  that  the  enforcement  of  right  laws  never  can  be 
persecution.  If,  therefore,  religion  or  religious  observ- 
ances be  a  proper  subject  of  legislation  by  civil  govern- 
ment, then  there  never  has  been  and  there  never  can  be 
any  such  thinsf  as  religious  persecution.  Because  civil 
governments  are  ruled  by  majorities,  the  religion  of  tl)e 
majority  must  of  necessity  be  the  adopted  religion  ;  and  if 
civil  legislation  in  religious  things  be  right,  the  majority 
may  legislate  in  regard  to  their  own  religion.  Such  laws 
made  in  such  a  case  must  be  right  laws,  and  the  enforce- 
ment of  them  therefore  can  never  be  persecution. 

But  all  this,  with  the  authority  and  all  the  claims  of 
the  Roman  empire,  is  swept  away  by  the  principle  of 
Christ,  which  every  one  then  asserted  who  named  the 
name  of  Christ,  —  that  civil  government  can  never  of 
right  have  anything  to  do  with  religion  or  religious  ob- 
servances,—  that  religion  is  not  a  subject  of  legislation 
by  any  civil  government,  —  that  religion,  religious  pro- 
fession, and  religious  observances  must  be  left  entirely 
between  the  individual  and  his  God,  to  worship  as  his  own 
conscience  shall  dictate,  —  that  to  God  only  is  to  be  ren- 
dered that  which  is  God's,  while  to  Caesar  is  to  be  rendered 
only  that  which  is  Caesar's.  This  is  the  principle  that 
Christ  established,  and  which,  by  his  disciples,  he  sent  into 
all  the  world,  and  which  they  asserted  wherever  they  went  ; 
in  behalf  of  which  they  forfeited  every  earthly  consider- 
ation, endured  untold  torments,  and  for  which  they  freely 
gave  their  lives.  It  was,  moreover,  because  of  the  estab- 
lishment of  this  principle  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  asser- 
tion of  it  by  his  true  disciples,  that  we  have  to-day  the 
rights  and  liberties  which  we  enjoy.  The  following  extract 
from  Lecky  is  worthy  to  be  recorded  in  letters  of  gold,  and 
held  in  sorrowful,  but  ever  grateful,  remembrance  :  — 


CHRISTIANITY    AND    THE    ROMAN    EMPIRE.  13 

**  Among  the  authentic  records  of  pagan  persecutions, 
there  are  histories  which  display,  perhaps  more  vividly 
than  any  other,  both  the  depth  of  cruelty  to  which  human, 
nature  may  sink,  and  the  heroism  of  resistance  it  may 
attain.  .  .  .  The  most  horrible  recorded  instances  of  tort- 
ure were  usually  inflicted,  either  by  the  populace,  or 
in  their  presence  in  the  arena.  We  read  of  Christians 
bound  in  chairs  of  red-hot  iron,  while  the  stench  of  their 
half-consumed  flesh  rose  in  a  suffocating  cloud  to  heaven  ; 
of  others  who  were  torn  to  the  very  bone  by  shells  or 
hooks  of  iron  ;  of  holy  virgins  given  over  to  the  lusts  of 
the  gladiator,  or  to  the  mercies  of  the  pander  ;  of  two 
hundred  and  twenty-seven  converts  sent  on  one  occasion 
to  the  mines,  each  with  the  sinews  of  one  leg  severed 
with  a  red-hot  iron,  and  with  an  eye  scooped  from  the 
socket  ;  of  fires  so  slow  that  the  victims  writhed  for  hours 
in  their  agonies  ;  of  bodies  torn  limb  from  limb,  or 
sprinkled  with  burning  lead  ;  of  mingled  salt  and  vinegar 
poured  over  the  flesh  that  was  bleeding  from  the  rack  ;  of 
tortures  prolonged  and  varied  through  entire  days.  For 
the  love  of  their  divine  Master,  for  the  cause  they  believed 
to  be  true,  men,  and  even  weak  girls,  endured  these 
things  without  flinching,  when  one  word  would  have  freed 
them  from  their  suffering.  No  opinion  we  may  form  of 
the  proceedings  of  priests  in  a  later  age,  should  impair 
the  reverence  with  which  we  bend  before  the  martyr's 
tomb." — History  of  European  Morals^  end  of  chapter  3. 

All  this  was  endured  by  men  and  women  and  even 
weak  girls,  that  people  in  future  ages  might  be  free.  All 
this  was  endured  in  support  of  the  principle,  that  with 
religion,  civil  government  cannot  of  right  have  anything 
to  do.  All  this  was  endured  that  men  might  be  free,  and 
that  all  future  ages  might  know  it  to  be  the  inalienable 
right  of  every  soul  to  worship  God  according  to  the  dic- 
tates of  his  own  conscience. 


CHAPTER  11. 

WHAT   IS   DUE   TO    GOD,    AND   WHAT  TO    C^SAR  ? 

"Then  went  the  Pharisees,  and  took  counsel  how  they 
might  entangle  him  in  his  talk.  And  they  sent  out  unto 
liim  their  disciples  with  the  Herodians,  saying,  Master, 
we  know  that  thou  art  true,  and  teachest  the  way  of 
God  in  truth  ;  neither  carest  thou  for  any  man,  for  thou 
regardest  not  the  person  of  men.  Tell  us  therefore, 
What  thinkest  thou  }  Is  it  lawful  to  give  tribute  unto 
Caesar,  or  not }  But  Jesus  perceived  their  wickedness, 
and  said.  Why  tempt  ye  me,  ye  hypocrites }  Show  me 
the  tribute  money.  And  they  brought  unto  him  a  penny. 
And  he  saith  unto  them.  Whose  is  this  image  and  super- 
scription }  They  say  unto  him,  Caesar's.  Then  saith  he 
unto  them.  Render  therefore  unto  Caesar  the  things 
which  are  Caesar's,  anc^  unto  God  the  things  that  are 
God's." 

In  these  words  Christ  has  established  a  clear  distinc- 
tion between  Caesar  and  God,  —  between  that  which  is 
Caesar's  and  that  which  is  God's  ;  that  is,  between  the 
civil  and  the  religious  power,  and  between  what  we  owe 
to  the  civil  power  and  what  we  owe  to  the  religious 
power.  That  which  is  Caesar's  is  to  be  rendered  to 
Caesar  ;  that  which  is  God's  is  to  be  rendered  to  God 
alone.  With  that  which  is  God's,  Caesar  can  have  noth- 
ing to  do.  To  say  that  we  are  to  render  to  Caesar  that 
which  is  God's,  or  that  we  are  to  render  to  God,  by  Caesar, 
that  which   is    God's,  is  to  pervert   the  words  of  Christ, 

(H) 


WHAT    IS    DUE    TO    GOD,    AND    WHAT    TO    C^SAR  ?  15 

and  make  them  meaningless.  Such  an  interpretation 
would  be  but  to  entangle  him  in  his  talk,  —  the  very 
thing  that  the  Pharisees  sought  to  do.  - 

As  the  word  Ccesar  refers  to  civil  government,  it  is 
apparent  at  once  that  the  duties  which  we  owe  to  Caesar 
are  civil  duties,  while  the  duties  which  we  owe  to  God 
are  wholly  moral  or  religious  duties.  Webster's  defini- 
tion of  religion  is,  — 

**  The  recognition  of  God  as  an  object  of  worship,  love, 
and  obedience." 

Another  definition,  equally  good,  is  as  follows  :  — 

'*  Man's  personal  relation  of  faith  and  obedience  to 
God." 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  religion  and  religious 
duties  pertain  solely  to  God  ;  and  as  that  which  is"  God's 
is  to  be  rendered  to  him  and  not  to  Caesar,  it  follows 
inevitably  that  according  to  the  words  of  Christ,  civil 
government  can  never  of  right  have  anything  to  do  with 
religion,  —  with  a  man's  personal  relation  of  faith  and 
obedience  to  God. 

Another  definition  which  may  help  in  making  the 
distinction  appear,  is  that  of  morality y  as  follows  :  — 

"  Morality :  The  relation  of  conformity  or  non-conform- 
ity to  the  true  moral  standard  or  rule.  .  .  .  The  con- 
formity of  an   act   to  the   divine  law." 

As  morality,  therefore,  is  the  conformity  of  an  act  to 
the  divine  law,  it  is  plain  that  morality  also  pertains  solely 
to  God,  and  with  that,  civil  government  can  have  noth- 
ing to  do.  This  may  appear  at  first  sight  to  be  an 
extreme  position,  if  not  a  false  one  ;  but  it  is  not.  It  is  the 
correct  position,  as  we  think  any  one  can  see  who  will 
give  the  subject  a  little  careful  thought.  The  first  part  of 
the  definition  already  given,  says  that  morality  is  '*  the  re- 
lation of  conformity  or  non-conformity  to  the  true  moral 
standard  or  rule,"  and  the    latter   part   of  the  definition 


16  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

shows  that  this  true    moral    standard  is  the    divine  law. 
Again  :    Moral  law  is  defined  as  — 

"The  will  of  God,  as  the  supreme  moral  ruler,  concern- 
ing the  character  and  conduct  of  all  responsible  beings  ; 
the  rule  of  action  as  obligatory  on  the  conscience  or 
moral  nature."  "  The  moral  law  is  summarily  contained  in 
the  decalogue,  written  by  the  finger  of  God  on  two  tables 
of  stone,  and  delivered  to  Moses  on  Mount  Sinai." 

These  definitions  are  evidently  according  to  Scripture. 
The  Scriptures  show  that  the  ten  commandments  are 
the  law  of  God;  that  they  express  the  will  of  God; 
that  they  pertain  to  the  conscience,  and  take  cognizance 
of  the  thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart ;  and  that  obe- 
dience to  these  commandments  is  the  duty  that  man 
owes  to  God.     Says  the  Scripture, — 

"  Fear  God,  and  keep  his  commandments  ;  for  this  is 
the  whole  duty  of  man."     Eccl.  12  :  13. 

And  the  Saviour  says, — 

**  Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said  by  them  of  old  time,. 
Thou  shalt  not  kill ;  and  whosoever  shall  kill  shall  be 
in  danger  of  the  judgment ;  but  I  say  unto  you  that  who- 
soever is  angry  with  his  brother  without  a  cause,  shall  be 
in  danger  of  the  judgment ;  and  whosoever  shall  say  to 
his  brother,  Raca  [vain  fellow,  margiii],  shall  be  in  dan- 
ger of  the  council  ;  but  whosoever  shall  say.  Thou  fool, 
shall  be  in  danger  of  hell  fire."     Matt.  5  :  21,  22. 

The  apostle  John,  referring  to  the  same  thing,  says,  — 

"  Whosoever  hateth  his  brother  is  a  murderer."  1  John 
3:15. 

Again,  the  Saviour  says, — 

"  Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said  by  them  of  old  time. 
Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery  ;  but  I  say  unto  you  that 
whosoever  looketh  on  a  woman  to  lust  after  her,  hath 
committed  adultery  with  her  already  in  his  heart."     Matt. 

5  :  27,  28. 


WHAT    IS    DUE    TO    GOD,    AND    WHAT    TO    C^SAR  ?  17 

Other  illustrations  might  be  given,  but  these  are  suf- 
ficient to  show  that  obedience  to  the  moral  law  is  moral- 
ity ;  that  it  pertains  to  the  thoughts  and  the  intents  of- 
the  heart,  and  therefore,  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case, 
lies  beyond  the  reach  or  control  of  the  civil  power.  To 
hate,  is  murder  ;  to  covet,  is  idolatry  ;  to  think  impurely 
of  a  woman,  is  adultery  ;  —  these  are  all  equally  immoral, 
and  violations  of  the  moral  law,  but  no  civil  government 
seeks  to  punish  for  them.  A  man  may  hate  his  neighbor 
all  his  life  ;  he  may  covet  everything  on  earth  ;  he  may 
think  impurely  of  every  woman  that  he  sees,  —  he  may 
keep  it  up  all  his  days  ;  but  so  long  as  these  things  are 
confined  to  his  thought,  the  civil  power  cannot  touch  him. 
It  would  be  difficult  to  conceive  of  a  more  immoral  per- 
son than  such  a  man  would  be  ;  yet  the  State  cannot  pun- 
ish him.  It  does  not  attempt  to  punish  him.  This  dem- 
onstrates again  that  with  morality  or  immorality  the 
State  can  have  nothing  to  do. 

But  let  us  carry  this  further.  Only  let  that  man's 
hatred  lead  him,  either  by  word  or  sign,  to  attempt  an 
injury  to  his  neighbor,  and  the  State  will  punish  him  ; 
only  let  his  covetousness  lead  him  to  lay  hands  on  what 
is  not  his  own,  in  an  attempt  to  steal,  and  the  State  will 
punish  him  ;  only  let  his  impure  thought  lead  him  to  at- 
tempt violence  to  any  woman,  and  the  State  will  punish 
him.  Yet  bear  in  mind  that  even  then  the  State  does 
not  punish  him  for  his  immorality,  but  for  his  incivility. 
The  immorality  lies  in  the  heart,  and  can  be  measured  by 
God  only.  The  State  punishes  no  man  because  he  is 
immoral.  If  it  did,  it  would  have  to  punish  as  a  mur- 
derer the  man  who  hates  another,  because  according  to 
the  true  standard  of  morality,  hatred  is  murder.  There- 
fore it  is  clear  that  in  fact  the  State  punishes  no  man  be- 
cause he  is  immoral,  but  because  he  is  uncivil.  It  can- 
not punish  immorality  ;  it  must  punish  incivility. 


18  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

This  distinction  is  shown  in  the  very  term  by  which 
is  designated  State  or  national  government  ;  it  is  called 
civil  government.  No  person  ever  thinks  of  calling  it 
moral  government.  The  government  of  God  is  the  only 
moral  government.  God  is  the  only  moral  governor. 
The  law  of  God  is  the  only  moral  law.  To  God  alone 
pertains  the  punishment  of  immorality,  which  is  the  trans- 
gression of  the  moral  law.  Governments  of  men  are  civil 
governments,  not  moral.  Governors  of  men  are  civil  gov- 
ernors, not  moral.  The  laws  of  States  and  nations  are 
civil  laws,  not  moral.  To  the  authorities  of  civil  gov- 
ernment pertains  the  punishment  of  incivility,  that  is, 
the  transgression  of  civil  law.  It  is  not  theirs  to  pun- 
ish immorality.  That  pertains  solely  to  the  Author  of 
the  moral  law  and  of  the  moral  sense,  who  is  the  sole 
judge  of  man's  moral  relation.  All  this  must  be  manifest 
to  every  one  who  will  think  fairly  upon  the  subject,  and  it 
is  confirmed  by  the  definition  of  the  word  civil,  which 
is  as  follows  :  — 

'*  Civil:  Pertaining  to  a  city  or  State,  or  to  a  citizen 
in  his  relations  to  his  fellow-citizens,  or  to  the  State." 

By  all  these  things  it  is  made  clear  that  we  owe  to 
Caesar  (civil  government)  only  that  which  is  civil,  and  that 
we  owe  to  God  that  which  is  moral  or  religious.  Other 
definitions  show  the  same  thing.  For  instance,  sin  as  de- 
fined by  Webster,  is  '' any  violation  of  God's  will;"  and 
as  defined  by  the  Scriptures,  *'  is  the  transgression  of  the 
law."  That  the  law  here  referred  to  is  the  moral  law  — 
the  ten  commandments  —  is  shown  by  Rom.  7  :  Y  :  — 

''  I  had  not  known  sin,  but  by  the  law  ;  for  I  had 
not  known  lust,  except  the  law  had  said.  Thou  shalt  not 
covet." 

Thus  the  Scriptures  show  that  sin  is  a  transgression 
of  the  law  which  says,  "  Thou  shalt  not  covet,"  and  that 
is  the  moral  law. 


WHAT    IS    DUE    TO    GOD,    AND    WHAl'     TO    CVESAR  ?  19 

But  crime  is  an  offense  against  the  laws  of  the  State. 
The  definition  is  as  follows  :  — 

"  Crime  is  strictly  a  violation  of  law  either  human  or 
divine  ;  but  in  present  usage  the  term  is  commonly  ap- 
plied to  actigns  contrary  to  the  laws  of  the  State." 

Thus  civil  statutes  define  crime,  and  deal  with  crime, 
but  not  with  sin  ;  while  the  divine  statutes  define  sin, 
and  deal  with  sin,  but  not  with  crime. 

As  God  is  the  only  moral  governor,  as  his  is  the  only 
moral  government,  as  his  law  is  the  only  moral  law,  and 
as  it  pertains  to  him  alone  to  punish  immorality,  so  like- 
wise the  promotion  of  morality  pertains  to  him  alone. 
Morality  is  conformity  to  the  law  of  God  ;  it  is  obedience 
to  God.  But  obedience  to  God  must  spring  from  the 
heart  in  sincerity  and  truth.  This  it  must  do,  or  it  is  not 
obedience  ;  for,  as  we  have  proved  by  the  word  of  God, 
the  law  of  God  takes  cognizance  of  the  thoughts  and  in- 
tents of  the  heart.  But  "all  have  sinned,  and  come  short 
of  the  glory  of  God."  By  transgression,  all  men  have  made 
themselves  immoral.  "Therefore  by  the  deeds  of  the  law 
[by  obedience]  there  shall  no  flesh  be  justified  [accounted 
righteous,  or  made  moral]  in  his  sight."  Rom.  3  :  20.  As 
all  men  have,  by  transgression  of  the  law  of  God,  made 
themselves  immoral,  therefore  no  man  can,  by  obedience 
to  the  law,  become  moral  ;  because  it  is  that  very  law 
which  declares  him  to  be  immoral.  The  demands,  there- 
fore, of  the  moral  law,  must  be  satisfied,  before  he  can 
ever  be  accepted  as  moral  by  either  the  law  or  its  Author. 
But  the  demands  of  the  moral  law  can  never  be  satisfied 
by  an  immoral  person,  and  this  is  just  what  every  person 
has  made  himself  by  transgression.  Therefore  it  is  certain 
that  men  can  never  become  moral  by  the  moral  law. 

From  this  it  is  equally  certain  that  if  ever  men  shall  be 
made  moral,  it  must  be  by  the  Author  and  Source  of  all 
morality.     And  this  is  just  the  provision  which  God  has 


20  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

made.  For,  "now  the  righteousness  [the  morality]  of  God 
without  the  law  is  manifested,  being  witnessed  by  the  law 
and  the  prophets  ;  even  the  righteousness  [the  morality] 
of  God  which  is  by  faith  of  Jesus  Christ  unto  all  and  upon 
all  them  that  believe  ;  for  there  is  no  difference  ;  for  all 
have  sinned  [made  themselves  immoral],  and  come  short 
of  the  glory  of  God."  Rom.  3:21-23.  It  is  by  the 
morality  of  Christ  alone  that  men  can  be  made  moral. 
And  this  morality  of  Christ  is  the  morality  of  God,  which 
is  imputed  to  us  for  Christ's  sake  ;  and  we  receive  it  by 
faith  in  Him  who  is  both  the  author  and  finisher  of  faith. 
Then  by  the  Spirit  of  God  the  moral  law  is  written  anew 
in  the  heart  and  in  the  mind,  sanctifying  the  soul  unto 
obedience — unto  morality.  Thus,  and  thus  alone,  can 
men  ever  attain  to  morality  ;  and  that  morality  is  the 
morality  of  God  which  is  by  faith  of  Jesus  Christ  ;  and 
there  is  no  other  in  this  world.  Therefore,  as  morality 
springs  from  God,  and  is  planted  in  the  heart  by  the  Spirit 
of  God,  through  faith  in  the  Son  of  God,  it  is  demonstrated 
by  proofs  of  Holy  Writ  itself,  that  to  God  alone  pertains 
the  promotion  of  morality. 

God,  then,  being  the  sole  promoter  of  morality,  through 
what  instrumentality  does  he  work  to  promote  morality 
in  the  world  }  What  body  has  he  made  the  conservator 
of  morality  in  the  world  :  the  church,  or  the  civil  power  ; 
which.?  —  The  church,  and  the  church  alone.  It  is  "  the 
church  of  the  living  God."  It  is  *'the  pillar  and  ground  of 
the  truth."  It  was  to  the  church  that  he  said,  "  Go  ye 
into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creat- 
ure ;"  "And,  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end 
of  the  world."  It  is  by  the  chureh,  through  the  preaching 
of  Jesus  Christ,  that  the  gospel  is  "made  known  to  all  na- 
tions for  the  obedience  of  faith."  There  is  no  obedience 
but  the  obedience  of  faith  ;  there  is  no  morality  but  the 
morality  of  faith.     Therefore    it    is    proved   that    to    the 


WHAT    IS    DUE    TO    GOD,    AND    WHAT    TO    C^SAR  ?  21 

church,  and  7iot  to  the  State,  is  committed  the  conservation 
of  morality  in  the  world.  This  at  once  settles  the  question 
as  to  whether  the  State  shall  teach  morality,  or  religion. 
The  State  cannot  teach  morality  or  religion.  It  has  not 
the  credentials  for  it.  The  Spirit  of  God  and  the  gospel 
of  Christ  are  both  essential  to  the  teaching  of  morality, 
and  neither  of  these  is  committed  to  the  State,  but  both 
to  the  church. 

But  though  this  work  be  committed  to  the  church, 
even  then  there  is  not  committed  to  the  church  the  pre- 
rogative either  to  reward  morality  or  to  punish  immoral- 
ity. She  beseeches,  she  entreats,  she  persuades  men  to 
be  reconciled  to  God  ;  she  trains  them  in  the  principles 
and  the  practice  of  morality.  It  is  hers  by  moral  suasion 
or  spiritual  censures  to  preserve  the  purity  and  discipline 
of  her  membership.  But  hers  it  is  not  either  to  reward 
morality  or  to  punish  immorality.  This  pertains  to  God 
alone,  because  whether  it  be  morality  or  immorality,  it 
springs  from  the  secret  counsels  of  the  heart  ;  and  as  God 
alone  knows  the  heart,  he  alone  can  measure  either  the 
merit  or  the  guilt  involved  in  any  question  of  morals. 

By  this  it  is  demonstrated  that  to  no  man,  to  no  assem- 
bly or  organization  of  men,  does  there  belong  any  right 
whatever  to  punish  immorality.  Whoever  attempts  it, 
usurps  the  prerogative  of  God.  The  Inquisition  is  the 
inevitable  logic  of  any  claim  of  any  assembly  of  men  to 
punish  immorality,  because  to  punish  immorality,  it  is 
necessary  in  some  way  to  get  at  the  thoughts  and  intents 
of  the  heart.  The  papacy,  asserting  the  right  to  compel 
men  to  be  moral,  and  to  punish  them  for  immorality,  had 
the  cruel  courage  to  carry  the  evil  principle  to  its  logical 
consequence.  In  carrying  out  the  principle,  it  was  found 
to  be  essential  to  get  at  the  secrets  of  men's  hearts  ;  and 
it  was  found  that  the  diligent  application  of  torture  would 
wring  from  men,  in  many  cases,  a  full  confession  of  the 
most  secret  counsels  of  their  hearts.    Hence  the  Inquisition 


^^  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

was  established  as  the  means  best  adapted  to  secure  the 
desired  end.  So  long  as  men  grant  the  proposition  that 
it  is  within  the  province  of  civil  government  to  enforce 
morality,  it  is  to  very  little  purpose  that  they  condemn 
the  Inquisition  ;  for  that  tribunal  is  only  the  logical  result 
of  the  proposition. 

By  all  these  evidences  is  established  the  plain,  com- 
mon-sense principle  that  to  civil  government  pertains 
only  that  which  the  term  itself  implies,  —  that  whicfi  is 
civil.  The  purpose  of  civil  government  is  civil,  and  not 
moral.  Its  function  is  to  preserve  order  in  society,  and 
to  cause  all  its  -eubjects  to  rest  in  assured  safety,  by 
guarding  them  against  all  incivility.  Morality  belongs 
to  God  ;  civility,  to  the  State.  Morality  must  be  ren- 
dered to  God;  civility,  to  the  State.  "Render  therefore 
unto  Caesar  the  things  which  are  Caesar's  ;  and  unto  God 
the  things  that  are  God's."  * 

But  it  may  be  asked,  Does  not  the  civil  power  enforce 
the  observance  of  the  commandments  of  God,  which  say, 
Thou  shalt  not  steal,  thou  shalt  not  kill,  thou  shalt  not 
commit  adultery,  and  thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness  ? 
Does  not  the  civil  power  punish  the  violation  of  these 
commandments  of  God  .''  Answer.  —  The  civil  power 
does  not  enforce  these,  nor  does  it  punish  the  violation 
of  them,  as  commandments  of  God.  The  State  does  for- 
bid murder  and  theft  and  perjury,  and  some  States  forbid 
adultery,  but  not  as  commandments  of  God.  From  time 
immemorial,  governments  that  knew  nothing  about  God, 
have    forbidden    these    things.       If    the    civil    power    at- 


*  There  is  an  accommodated  sense  in  which  the  word  morality  is  used,  in 
which  it  is  made  to  refer  only  to  men's  relations  to  their  fellow-men  ;  and  with 
reference  to  this  view  of  morality,  it  is  sometimes  said  that  the  civil  power  is 
to  enforce  morality  upon  a  civil  basis.  But  morality  on  a  civil  basis  is  only 
civility,  and  the  enforcement  of  morality  upon  a  civil  basis  is  the  enforcement 
of  civility,  and  nothing  else.  Without  the  Inquisition  it  is  impossible  for  civil 
government  ever  to  carry  its  jurisdiction  beyond  civil  things,  or  to  enforce  any- 
thing but  civility. 


WHAT  IS  DUE  TO  GOD,  AND  WHAT  TO  CiESAR  ?        23 

tempted  to  enforce  these  as  the  commandments  of  God, 
it  would  have  to  punish  as  a  murderer  the  man  who 
hates  another;  it  would  have  to  punish  as  a  perjurer 
the  man  who  raises  a  false  report ;  it  would  have  to 
punish  as  an  adulterer  the  person  who  thinks  im- 
purely ;  it  would  have  to  punish  as  a  thief  the  man  who 
wishes  to  cheat  his  neighbor  ;  because  all  these  things 
are  violations  of  the  commandments  of  God.  Therefore 
if  the  State  is  to  enforce  these  things  as  the  command- 
ments of  God,  it  will  have  to  punish  the  thoughts  and 
intents  of  the  heart  ;  but  this  is  not  within  the  province 
of  any  earthly  power,  and  it  is  clear  that  any  earthly 
power  that  should  attempt  it,  would  thereby  simply  put 
itself  in  the  place  of  God,  and  usurp  his  prerogative. 

More  than  this,  such  an  effort  would  be  an  attempt  to 
punish  sin,  because  transgression  of  the  law  of  God  is 
sin  ;  but  sins  will  be  forgiven  upon  repentance,  and  God 
does  not  punish  the  sinner  for  the  violation  of  his  law, 
when  his  sins  are  forgiven.  Now  if  the  civil  power  un- 
dertakes to  enforce  the  observance  of  the  law  of  God,  it 
cannot  justly  enforce  that  law  upon  the  transgressor  whom 
God  has  forgiven.  For  instance,  suppose  a  man  steals 
twenty  dollars  from  his  neighbor,  and  is  arrested,  prose- 
cuted, and  found  guilty.  But  suppose  that  between  the 
time  that  he  is  found  guilty  and  the  time  when  sentence 
is  to  be  passed,  the  man  repents,  and  is  forgiven  by  the 
Lord.  Now  he  is  counted  by  the  Lord  as  though  he 
never  had  violated  the  law  of  God.  The  commandment 
of  God  does  not  stand  against  him  for  that  transgression. 
And  as  it  is  the  law  of  God  that  the  civil  law  started 
out  to  enforce,  the  civil  power  also  must  forgive  him, 
count  him  innocent,  and  let  him  go  free.  More  than 
this,  the  statute  of  God  says,  "If  thy  brother  trespass 
against  thee,  rebuke  him  ;  and  if  he  repent,  forgive  him. 
And  if  he  trespass  against  thee  seven  times  in  a  day,  and 


24  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

seven  times  in  a  day  turn  again  to  thee,  saying,  I  repent ; 
thou  shalt  forgive  him."  If  civil  government  is  to  enforce 
the  law  of  God,  when  a  man  steals,  or  commits  perjury 
or  any  form  of  violence,  and  is  arrested,  if  he  says,  ''  I  re- 
pent," he  must  be  forgiven  ;  if  he  does  it  again,  is  again 
arrested,  and  again  says,  *'  I  repent,"  he  must  be  for- 
given ;  and  if  he  commits  it  seven  times  in  a  day,  and 
seven  times  in  a  day  says,  "I  repent,"  he  must  be  for- 
given. It  will  be  seen  at  once  that  any  such  system 
would  be  utterly  destructive  of  civil  government  ;  and 
this  only  demonstrates  conclusively  that  no  civil  govern- 
ment can  ever  of  right  have  anything  to  do  with  the 
enforcement  of  the  commandments  of  God  as  such,  or 
with  making  the  Bible  its  code  of  laws. 

God's  government  can  be  sustained  by  the  forgiveness 
of  the  sinner  to  the  uttermost,  because  by  the  sacrifice  of 
Christ  he  has  made  provision  '*  to  save  them  to  the  utter- 
most that  come  unto  God  by  him  ;  seeing  he  ever  liveth 
to  make  intercession  for  them  ; "  but  in  civil  government, 
if  a  man  steals,  or  commits  any  other  crime,  and  is  appre- 
hended and  found  guilty,  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
case  if  the  Lord  does  forgive  him  ;  he  must  be  punished. 

The  following  remarks  of  Prof  W.  T.  Harris,  late 
superintendent  of  public  schools  in  the  city  of  St.  Louis, 
are  worthy  of  careful  consideration  in  this  connection  :  — 

**A  crime,  or  breach  of  justice,  is  a  deed  of  the  individ- 
ual, which  the  State,  by  its  judicial  acts,  returns  on  the 
individual.  The  State  furnishes  a  measure  for  crime,  and 
punishes  criminals  according  to  their  deserts.  The  judi- 
cial mind  is  a  measuring  mind,  a  retributive  mind,  because* 
trained  in  the  forms  of  justice  which  sees  to  it  that  every 
man's  deed  shall  be  returned  to  him,  to  bless  him  or  to 
curse  him  with  pain.  Now,  a  sin  is  a  breach  of  the  law  of 
holiness,  a  lapse  out  of  the  likeness  to  the  divine  form, 
and  as  such  it  utterly  refuses  to  be  measured.  It  is  infi- 
nite death  to  lapse  out  of  the  form  of  the  divine.     A  sin 


WHAT    IS    DUE    TO    GOD,    AND    WHAT    TO    CiESAR  ?  25 

cannot  be  atoned  for  by  any  finite  punishment,  but  only 
(as  revelation  teaches)  by  a  divine  act  of  sacrifice.  .  .  . 
It  would  destroy  the  State  to  attempt  to  treat  crimes  as_ 
sins,  and  to  forgive  them  in  case  of  repentance.  It 
would  impose  on  the  judiciary  the  business  of  going 
behind  the  overt  act  to  the  disposition  or  frame  of  mind 
within  the  depth  of  personality.  But  so  long  as  the  deed 
is  not  uttered  in  the  act,  it  does  not  belong  to  society, 
but  only  to  the  individual  and  to  God.  No  human  institu- 
tion can  go  behind  the  overt  act,  and  attempt  to  deal  ab- 
solutely with  the  substance  of  man's  spiritual  freedom. 
.  .  .  Sin  and  crime  must  not  be  confounded,  nor  must 
the  same  deed  be  counted  as  crime  and  sin  by  the  same 
authority.  Look  at  it  as  crime,  and  it  is  capable  of 
measured  retribution.  The  law  does  not  pursue  the  mur- 
derer beyond  the  gallows.  He  has  expiated  his  crime 
with  his  life.  But  the  slightest  sin,  even  if  it  is  no  crime 
at  all,  as  for  example  the  anger  of  a  man  against  his 
brother,  an  anger  which  does  not  utter  itself  in  the  form 
of  violent  deeds,  but  is  pent  up  in  the  heart,  —  such  non- 
criminal sin  will  banish  the  soul  forever  from  heaven, 
unless  it  is  made  naught  by  sincere  repentance." 

The  points  already  presented  in  this  chapter  are  per- 
haps sufficient  in  this  place  to  illustrate  the  principle 
announced  in  the  word  of  Christ ;  and  although  that  prin- 
ciple is  plain,  and  is  readily  accepted  by  the  sober,  com- 
mon-sense thought  of  every  man,  yet  through  the  selfish 
ambition  of  men  the  world  has  been  long  in  learning  and 
accepting  the  truth  of  the  lesson.  The  United  States  is 
the  first  and  only  government  in  history  that  is  based  on 
the  principle  established  by  Christ.  In  Article  VI.  of  the 
national  Constitution,  this  nation  says  that  "no  religious 
test  shall  ever  be  required  as  a  qualification  to  any  office 
or  public  trust  under  the  United  States."  By  an  amend- 
ment making  more  certain  the  adoption  of  the  principle, 
it  declares  in  the  first  amendment  to  the  Constitution, 
"Congress  shall  make  no  law  respecting  an  establish- 
ment of  religion,  or  prohibiting  the  free  exercise   there- 


2fi  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

of."  This  first  amendment  was  adopted  in  1789,  by  the 
first  Congress  that  ever  met  under  the  Constitution.  In 
1796  a  treaty  was  made  with  Tripoli,  in  which  it  was 
declared  (Article  II.)  that  "the  Government  of  the  United 
States  of  America  is  not  in  any  sense  founded  on  the 
Christian  religion."  This  treaty  was  framed  by  an  ex- 
Congregationalist  clergyman,  and  was  signed  by  Presi- 
dent Washington.  It  was  not  out  of  disrespect  to  relig- 
ion or  Christianity  that  these  clauses  were  placed  in  the 
Constitution,  and  that  this  one  was  inserted  in  that  treaty. 
On  the  contrary,  it  was  entirely  on  account  of  their  re- 
spect for  religion,  and  the  Christian  religion  in  particular, 
as  being  beyond  the  province  of  civil  government,  per- 
taining solely  to  the  conscience,  and  resting  entirely 
between  the  individual  and  God.  It  was  because  of  this 
that  this  nation  was  Constitutionally  established  accord- 
ing to  the  principle  of  Christ,  demanding  of  men  only 
that  they  render  to  Caesar  that  which  is  Caesar's,  and 
leaving  them  entirely  free  to  render  to  God  that  which  is 
God's,  if  they  choose,  as  they  choose,  and  when  they 
choose  ;  or,  as  expressed  by  Washington  himself,  in  reply 
to  an  address  upon  the  subject  of  religious  legislation  :  — 

''Every  man  who  conducts  himself  as  a  good  citizen, 
is  accountable  alone  to  God  for  his  religious  faith,  and 
should  be  protected  in  worshiping  God  according  to  the 
dictates  of  his  own  conscience." 

We  cannot  more  fitly  close  this  chapter  than  with 
the  following  tribute  of  George  Bancroft  to  this  principle, 
as  embodied  in  the  words  of  Christ,  and  in  the  American 
Constitution :  — 

"  In  the  earliest  States  known  to  history,  government 
and  religion  were  one  and  indivisible.  Each  State  had 
its  special  deity,  and  often  these  protectors,  one  after 
another,  might  be  overthrown  in  battle,  never  to  rise 
again.     The  Peloponnesian  War  grew  out  of  a  strife  about 


WHAT    IS    DUE    TO    GOD,  AND    WHAT    TO    Ci«SAR  ?  27 

an  oracle.  Rome,  as  it  sometimes  adopted  into  citizen- 
ship those  whom  it  vanquished,  introduced  in  like  manner, 
and  with  good  logic  for  that  day.,  the  worship  of  their, 
gods.  No  one  thought  of  vindicating  -religion  for  the 
conscience  of  the  individual,  till  a  voice  in  Judea,  break- 
ing day  for  the  greatest  epoch  in  the  life  of  humanity, 
by  establishing  a  pure,  spiritual,  and  universal  religion 
for  all  mankind,  enjoined  to  render  to  Caesar  only  that 
which  is  Caesar's.  The  rule  was  upheld  during  the  infancy 
of  the  gospel  for  all  men.  No  sooner  was  this  religion 
adopted  by  the  chief  of  the  Roman  empire,  than  it  was 
shorn  of  its  character  of  universality,  and  enthralled  by 
an  unholy  connection  with  the  unholy  State  ;  and  so  it 
continued  till  the  new  nation,  —  the  least  defiled  with  the 
barren  scofifings  of  the  eighteenth  century,  the  most  gen- 
eral believer  in  Christianity  of  any  people  of  that  age, 
the  chief  heir  of  the  Reformation  in  its  purest  forms, — 
when  it  came  to  establish  a  government  for  the  United 
States,  refused  to  treat  faith  as  a  matter  to  be  regulated 
by  a  corporate  body,  or  having  a  headship  in  a  monarch 
or  a  State. 

"Vindicating  the  right  of  individuality  even  in  relig- 
ion, and  in  religion  above  all,  the  new  nation  dared  to 
set  the  example  of  accepting  in  its  relations  to  God  the 
principle  first  divinely  ordained  of  God  in  Judea.  It  left 
the  management  of  temporal  things  to  the  temporal 
power  ;  but  the  American  Constitution,  in  harmony  with 
the  people  of  the  several  States,  withheld  from  the  Federal 
Government  the  power  to  invade  the  home  of  reason,, 
the  citadel  of  conscience,  the  sanctuary  of  the  soul  ;  and 
not  from  indifference,  but  that  the  infinite  Spirit  of  eternal 
truth  might  move  in  its  freedom  and  purity  and  power." — 
History  of  the  Formation  of  the  Constitution,  last  chapter. 

Thus  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  as  it  is, 
stands  as  the  sole  monument  of  all  history  representing 
the  principle  which  Christ  established  for  earthly  gov- 
ernment. And  under  it,  in  liberty,  civil  and  religious,  in 
enlightenment,  and  in  progress,  this  nation  has  deserv- 
edly stood  as  the  beacon-light  of  the  world,  for  a  hun- 
dred years. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE    POWERS    THAT   BE. 

In  support  of  the  doctrine  that  civil  government  has 
the  right  to  act  in  things  pertaining  to  God,  the  text  of 
Scripture  is  quoted  which  says,  "  The  powers  that  be  are 
ordained  of  God."  This  passage  is  found  in  Rom.  13  :  1. 
The  first  nine  verses  of  the  chapter  are  devoted  to  this 
subject,  showing  that  the  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of 
God,  and  enjoining  upon  Christians,  upon  every  soul  in 
fact,  the  duty  of  respectful  subjection  to  civil  govern- 
ment.    The  whole  passage  reads  as  follows  :  — 

**  Let  every  soul  be  subject  unto  the  higher  powers. 
For  there  is  no  power  but  of  God  :  the  powers  that  be  are 
ordained  of  God.  Whosoever  therefore  resisteth  the 
power,  resisteth  the  ordinance  of  God  ;  and  they  that 
resist  shall  receive  to  themselves  damnation.  For  rulers 
are  not  a  terror  to  good  works,  but  to  the  evil.  Wilt 
thou  then  not  be  afraid  of  the  power  ?  do  that  which  is 
good,  and  thou  shalt  have  praise  of  the  same  :  for  he  is 
the  minister  of  God  to  thee  for  good.  But  if  thou  do  that 
which  is  evil,  be  afraid  :  for  he  beareth  not  the  sword  in 
vain  ;  for  he  is  the  minister  of  God,  a  revenger  to  execute 
wrath  upon  him  that  doeth  evil.  Wherefore  ye  must 
needs  be  subject  not  only  for  wrath,  but  also  for  con- 
science' sake.  For,  for  this  cause  pay  ye  tribute  also  ;  for 
they  are  God's  ministers,  attending  continually  upon  this 
very  thing.  Render  therefore  to  all  their  dues  :  tribute  to 
whom  tribute  is  due  ;  custom  to  whom  custom  ;  fear  to 
whom  fear  ;  honor  to  whom  honor.  Owe  no  man  any- 
thing, but  to  love  one  another  ;  for  he  that  loveth  another 

(28) 


THE    POWERS    THAT    BE.  29 

hath  fulfilled  the  law.  For  this,  Thou  shalt  not  commit 
adultery,  Thou  shalt  not  kill,  Thou  shalt  not  steal.  Thou 
shalt  not  bear  false  witness,  Thou  shalt  not  covet  :  and 
if  there  be  any  other  commandment,  it  is  briefly  compre- 
hended in  this  saying,  namely,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neigh- 
bor as  thyself" 

It  is  easy  to  see  that  this  scripture  is  but  an  exposi- 
tion of  the  words  of  Christ,  '*  Render  to  Caesar  the  things 
that  are  Caesar's."  In  the  Saviour's  command  to  render 
unto  Caesar  the  things  that  are  Caesar's,  there  is  plainly  a 
recognition  of  the  rightfulness  of  civil  government,  and 
that  civil  government  has  claims  upon  us  which  we  are 
in  duty  bound  to  recognize,  and  that  there  are  things 
which  duty  requires  us  to  render  to  the  civil  government. 
This  scripture  in  Romans  13  simply  states  the  same  thing 
in  other  words :  '*  Let  every  soul  be  subject  unto  the 
higher  powers.  For  there  is  no  power  but  of  God  :  the 
powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God." 

Again,  the  Saviour's  words  were  called  out  by  a  ques- 
tion concerning  tribute.  They  said  to  him,  '*  Is  it  lawful 
to  give  tribute  unto  Caesar,  or  not  ?  "  Rom.  13  :  6  refers 
to  the  same  thing,  saying,  "  For,  for  this  cause  pay  ye  trib- 
ute also  ;  for  they  are  God's  ministers,  attending  continu- 
ally upon  this  very  thing."  In  answer  to  the  question  of 
the  Pharisees  about  the  tribute,  Christ  said,  "Render 
therefore  unto  Caesar  the  things  which  are  Caesar's." 
Rom.  13  :  7,  taking  up  the  same  thought,  says,  "  Render 
therefore  to  all  their  dues  :  tribute  to  whom  tribute  is 
due  ;  custom  to  whom  custom  ;  fear  to  whom  fear  ;  honor 
to  whom  honor."  These  references  make  positive  that 
which  we  have  stated,  —  that  this  portion  of  Scripture 
(Rom.  13  :  1-9)  is  a  divine  commentary  upon  the  words  of 
Christ  in  Matt.  22  :  17-21. 

In  the  previous  chapter  we  have  shown  by  many  proofs 
that  civil  government  has  nothing  to  do  with  anything 
that  pertains  to  God.     If  the  argument  in  that  chapter  is 


30  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

sound,  then  Rom.  13:1-9,  being  the  Lord's  commentary 
upon  the  words  which  are  the  basis  of  that  argument, 
ought  to  confirm  the  position  there  taken.  And  this  it 
does. 

The  passage  in  Romans  refers  first  to  civil  government, 
the  higher  powers,  —  not  the  highest  power,  but  the  pow- 
ers that  be.  Next  it  speaks  of  rulers,  as  bearing  the 
sword  and  attending  upon  matters  of  tribute.  Then  it 
commands  to  render  tribute  to  whom  tribute  is  due,  and 
says,  ''  Owe  no  man  any  thing  ;  but  to  love  one  another  ; 
for  he  that  loveth  another  hath  fulfilled  the  law."  Then 
he  refers  to  the  sixth,  seventh,  eighth,  ninth,  and  tenth 
commandments,  and  says,  ''  If  there  be  any  other  com- 
mandment, it  is  briefly  comprehended  in  this  saying, 
namely.  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself" 

There  are  other  commandments  of  this  same  law  to 
which  Paul  refers.  Why,  then,  did  he  say,  **  If  there  be 
any  other  commandment,  it  is  briefly  comprehended  in 
this  saying.  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself".? 
There  are  the  four  commandments  of  the  first  table  of 
this  same  law,  —  the  commandments  which  say,  "Thou 
shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  me  ;  Thou  shalt  not  make 
any  graven  image,  or  any  likeness  of  any  thing  ;  Thou 
shalt  not  take  the  name  of  the  Lord  thy  God  in  vain  ; 
Remember  the  Sabbath  day  to  keep  it  holy."  Then  there 
is  the  other  commandment  in  which  are  briefly  compre- 
hended all  these,  — ''  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God 
with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy 
mind,  and  with  all  thy  strength." 

Paul  knew  full  well  of  these  commandments.  Why, 
then,  did  he  say,  "  If  there  be  any  other  commandment, 
it  is  briefly  comprehended  in  this  saying,  Thou  shalt  love 
thy  neighbor  as  thyself".?  Answer.  —  Because  he  was 
writing  concerning  the  words  of  the  Saviour  which  relate 
to  our  duties  to  civil  government. 


THE    POWERS    THAT    BE.  31 

Our  duties  under  civil  governmefit  pertain  solely  to  the 
government  and  to  our  fellow-men,  because  the  powers  of 
civil  government  pertain  solely  to  men  in  their  relations 
one  to  another,  and  to  the  government.  But  the  Saviour's 
words  in  the  same  connection  entirely  separated  that 
which  pertains  to  God  from  that  which  pertains  to  civil 
government.  The  things  which  pertain  to  God  are  not 
to  be  rendered  to  civil  government  —  to  the  powers  that 
be  ;  therefore  Paul,  although  knowing  full  well  that  there 
were  other  commandments,  said,  *'  If  there  be  any  other 
commandment,  it  is  briefly  comprehended  in  this  saying. 
Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself;"  that  is,  if  there 
be  any  other  commandment  which  comes  into  the  relation 
between  man  and  civil  government,  it  is  comprehended 
in  this  saying,  that  he  shall  love  his  neighbor  as  himself; 
thus  showing  conclusively  that  the  powers  that  be,  though 
ordained  of  God,  are  so  ordained  simply  in  things  pertain- 
ing to  the  relation  of  man  with  his  fellow-men,  and  in 
those  things  alone. 

Further,  as  in  this  divine  record  of  the  duties  that 
men  owe  to  the  powers  that  be,  there  is  no  reference 
whatever  to  the  first  table  of  the  law,  it  therefore  follows 
that  the  powers  that  be,  although  ordained  of  God,  have 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  relations  which  men  bear 
toward  God. 

As  the  ten  commandments  contain  the  whole  duty  of 
man,  and  as  in  the  scriptural  enumerations  of  the  duties 
that  men  owe  to  the  powers  that  be,  there  is  no  men- 
tion of  any  of  the  things  contained  in  the  first  table  of 
the  law,  it  follows  that  none  of  the  duties  enjoined  in 
the  first  table  of  the  law  of  God,  do  men  owe  to  the  pow- 
ers that  be  ;  that  is  to  say,  again,  that  the  powers  that 
be,  although  ordained  of  God,  are  not  ordained  of  God  in 
anything  pertaining  to  a  single  duty  enjoined  in  any  one 
of  the  first  four  of  the  ten    commandments.     These   are 


32  CTVTL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

duties  that  men  owe  to  God,  and  with  these  the  powers 
that  be  can  of  right  have  nothing  to  do,  because  Christ 
has  commanded  to  render  unto  God  —  not  to  Caesar,  nor 
by  Caesar  —  that  which  is  God's. 

This  is  confirmed  by  other  scriptures  :  — 

*'In  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim,  the  son 
of  Josiah  king  of  Judah,  came  this  word  unto  Jeremiah 
from  the  Lord,  saying,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  to  me  :  Make 
thee  bonds  and  yokes,  and  put  them  upon  thy  neck,  and 
send  them  to  the  king  of  Edom,  and  to  the  king  of 
Moab,  and  to  the  king  of  the  Ammonites,  and  to  the 
king  of  Tyrus,  and  to  the  king  of  Zidon,  by  the  hand 
of  the  messengers  which  come  to  Jerusalem  unto  Zedekiah 
king  of  Judah,  and  command  them  to  say  unto  their  mas- 
ters, Thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  the  God  of  Israel : 
Thus  shall  ye  say  unto  your  masters  :  I  have  made  the 
earth,  the  man  and  the  beast  that  are  upon  the  ground, 
by  my  great  power  and  by  my  outstretched  arm,  and 
have  given  it  unto  whom  it  seemed  meet  unto  me.  And 
now  have  I  given  all  these  lands  into  the  hand  of  Neb- 
uchadnezzar the  king  of  Babylon,  my  servant ;  and  the 
beasts  of  the  field  have  I  given  him  also  to  serve  him. 
And  all  nations  shall  serve  him,  and  his  son,  and  his 
son's  son,  until  the  very  time  of  his  land  come,  and  then 
many  nations  and  great  kings  shall  serve  themselves  of 
him.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  that  the  nation  and 
kingdom  which  will  not  serve  the  same  Nebuchadnezzar 
the  king  of  Babylon,  and  that  will  not  put  their  neck  under 
the  yoke  of  the  king  of  Babylon,  that  nation  will  I  pun- 
ish, saith  the  Lord,  with  the  sword,  and  with  the  famine, 
and  with  the  pestilence,  until  I  have  consumed  them  by 
his  hand." 

In  this  scripture  it  is  clearly  shown  that  the  power 
of  Nebuchadnezzar,  king  of  Babylon,  was  ordained  of 
God  ;  nor  to-  Nebuchadnezzar  alone,  but  to  his  son  and 
his  son's  son  ;  which  is  to  say  that  the  power  of  the 
Babylonian  empire,  as  an  imperial  power,  was  ordained 
of  God.  Nebuchadnezzar  was  plainly  called  by  the  Lord, 
**My    servant,"    and    the    Lord    says,    ''And   now  have  I 


THE    POWERS    THAT    BE.  33 

given  all  these  lands  into  the  hand  of  Nebuchadnezzar 
the  king  of  Babylon."  He  further  says  that  whatever 
"nation  and  kingdom  which  will  not  serve  the  same 
Nebuchadnezzar  the  king  of  Babylon,  and  that  will  not 
put  their  neck  under  the  yoke  of  the  king  of  Babylon, 
that  nation  will  I  punish." 

Now  let  us  see  whether  this  power  was  ordained  of 
God  in  things  pertaining  to  God.  In  the  third  chapter 
of  Daniel  we  have  the  record  that  Nebuchadnezzar  made 
a  great  image  of  gold,  set  it  up  in  the  plain  of  Dura,  and 
gathered  together  the  princes,  the  governors,  the  captains, 
the  judges,  the  treasurers,  the  counselors,  the  sheriffs,  and 
all  the  rulers  of  the  provinces,  to  the  dedication  of  the 
image  ;  and  they  stood  before  the  image  that  had  been 
set  up.     Then  a  herald  from  the  king  cried  aloud  :  — 

"To  you  it  is  commanded,  O  people,  nations,  and 
languages,  that  at  what  time  ye  hear  the  sound  of  the 
cornet,  flute,  harp,  sackbut,  psaltery,  dulcimer,  and  all 
kinds  of  music,  ye  fall  down  and  worship  the  golden 
image  that  Nebuchadnezzar  the  king  hath  set  up  ;  and 
whoso  falleth  not  down  and  worshipeth  shall  the  same 
hour  be  cast  into  the  midst  of  a  burning  fiery  furnace." 

In  obedience  to  this  command,  all  the  people  bowed 
down  and  worshiped  before  the  image,  except  three  Jews, 
Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abed-nego.  This  disobedience 
was  reported  to  Nebuchadnezzar,  who  commanded  them 
to  be  brought  before  him,  when  he  asked  them  if  they 
had  disobeyed  his  order  intentionally.  He  himself  then 
repeated  his  command  to  them. 

These  men  knew  that  they  had  been  made  subject  to 
the  king  of  Babylon  by  the  Lord  himself.  It  had  not 
only  been  prophesied  by  Isaiah  (chap.  39),  but  by  Jere- 
miah. At  the  final  siege  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar, 
the  Lord  through  Jeremiah  told  the  people  to  submit 
to  the  king  of  Babylon,  and  that  whosoever  would  do  it 
3 


34  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

it  should  be  well  with  them  ;  whosoever  would  not  do  it, 
it  should  be  ill  with  them.  Yet  these  men,  knowing  all 
this,  made  answer  to  Nebuchadnezzar  thus  :  — 

*'  O  Nebuchadnezzar,  we  are  not  careful  to  answer  thee 
in  this  matter.  If  it  be  so,  our  God  whom  we  serve  is 
able  to  deliver  us  from  the  burning  fiery  furnace,  and 
he  will  deliver  us  out  of  thine  hand,  O  king.  But  if  not, 
be  it  known  unto  thee,  O  king,  that  we  will  not  serve 
thy  gods,  nor  worship  the  golden  image  which  thou 
hast  set  up." 

Then  these  men  were  cast  into  the  fiery  furnace, 
heated  seven  times  hotter  than  it  was  wont  to  be  heated  ; 
but  suddenly  Nebuchadnezzar  rose  up  in  haste  and  as- 
tonishment, and  said  to  his  counselors,  *'  Did  we  not 
cast  three  men  bound  into  the  midst  of  the  fire.'^"  They 
answered,  "True,  O  king."  But  he  exclaimed,  "  Lo,  I 
see  four  men  loose,  walking  in  the  midst  of  the  fire,  and 
they  have  no  hurt  ;  and  the  form  of  the  fourth  is  like  the 
Son  of  God."     The   men   were  called  forth  ;  — 

"  Then  Nebuchadnezzar  spake  and  said,  Blessed  be  the 
God  of  Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abed-nego,  who  hath  sent 
his  angel  and  delivered  his  servants  that  trusted  in  him, 
and  have  changed  the  king's  word,  and  yielded  their 
bodies,  that  they  might  not  serve  nor  worship  any  god, 
except  their  own  God." 

Here  we  have  demonstrated  the  following  facts  :  First, 
God  gave  power  to  the  kingdom  of  Babylon  ;  second,  he 
suffered  his  people  to  be  subjected  to  that  power  ;  third, 
he  defended  his  people  by  a  wonderful  miracle  from  a 
certain  exercise  of  that  power.  Does  God  contradict  or 
oppose  himself.?  — Far  from  it.  What,  then,  does  this 
show  .!*  —  It  shows  conclusively  that  this  was  an  undue 
exercise  of  the  power  w^hich  God  had  given.  By  this  it  is 
demonstrated  that  the  power  of  the  kingdom  of  Babylon, 
although  ordained  of  God,  was  not  ordained  unto  any 
such  purpose   as  that   for  which    it  was    exercised  ;    and 


THE    POWERS    THAT  .BE.  35 

that  though  ordained  of  God,  it  was  not  ordained  to  be 
authority  in  things  pertaining  to  God,  or  in  things  per- 
taining to  men's  consciences.  And  it  was  written  for  the 
instruction  of  future  ages,  and  for  our  admonition  upon 
whom  the  ends  of  the  world  are  come. 

Another  instance :  We  read  above  that  the  power 
of  Babylon  was  given  to  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  his  son, 
and  his  son's  son,  and  that  all  nations  should  serve  Baby- 
lon until  that  time,  and  that  then  nations  and  kings 
should  serve  themselves  of  him.  Other  prophecies  show 
that  Babylon  was  then  to  be  destroyed.  Jer.  51 :  28  says 
that  the  kings  of  the  Medes,  and  all  his  land,  with  the 
captains  and  rulers,  should  be  prepared  against  Babylon 
to  destroy  it.  Isa.  21  :2  shows  that  Persia  (Elam)  should 
accompany  Media  in  the  destruction  of  Babylon.  Isa. 
45  : 1-4  names  Cyrus  as  the  leader  of  the  forces,  more 
than  a  hundred  years  before  he  was  born,  and  one  hundred 
and  seventy-four  years  before  the  time.  And  of  Cyrus, 
the  prophet  said  from  the  Lord,  *'Ihave  raised  him  up 
in  righteousness,  and  I  will  direct  all  his  ways  ;  he  shall 
build  my  city,  and  he  shall  let  go  my  captives,  not  for 
price,  nor  reward,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts."  Isa.  45  :  13. 
But  in  the  conquest  of  Babylon,  Cyrus  was  only  the 
leader  of  the  forces.  The  kingdom  and  rule  were  given 
to  Darius  the  Mede  ;  for,  said  Daniel  to  Belshazzar,  on 
the  night  when  Babylon  fell,  *'Thy  kingdom  is  divided, 
and  given  to  the  Medes  and  Persians."  Then  the  record 
proceeds  :  *' In  that  night  was  Belshazzar  the  king  of  the 
Chaldeans  slain.  And  Darius  the  Median  took  the  king- 
dom." Of  him  we  read  in  Dan.  11  : 1,  the  words  of  the 
angel  Gabriel  to  the  prophet,  "I,  in  the  first  year  of  Darius 
the  Mede,  even  I,  stood  to  confirm  and  to  strengthen  him." 

There  can  be  no  shadow  of  doubt,  therefore,  that  the 
power  of  Media  and  Persia  was  ordained  of  God.  Darius 
made  Daniel  prime  minister  of  the  empire.     But  a  num- 


36  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

ber  of  the  presidents  and  princes,  envious  of  the  position 
given  to  Daniel,  attempted  to  undermine  him.  After 
earnest  efforts  to  find  occasion  against  him  in  matters  per- 
taining to  the  kingdom,  they  v^^ere  forced  to  confess  that 
there  was  neither  error  nor  fault  anywhere  in  his  con- 
duct. Then  said  these  men,  "We  shall  not  find  any  oc- 
casion against  this  Daniel,  except  we  find  it  against 
him  concerning  the  law  of  his  God."  They  therefore 
assembled  together  to  the  king,  and  told  him  that  all  the 
presidents  of  the  kingdom,  and  the  governors,  and  the 
princes,  and  the  captains,  had  consulted  together  to  es- 
tablish a  royal  statute,  and  to  make  a  decree  that  who- 
ever should  ask  a  petition  of  any  god  or  man,  except  the 
king,  for  thirty  days,  should  be  cast  into  the  den  of  lions. 
Darius,  not  suspecting  their  object,  signed  the  decree. 
Daniel  knew  that  the  decree  had  been  made,  and  signed 
by  the  king.  It  was  hardly  possible  for  him  not  to  know 
it,  being  prime  minister.  Yet  notwithstanding  his  knowl- 
edge of  the  affair,  he  went  into  his  chamber,  and  his  win- 
dows being  opened  toward  Jerusalem,  he  kneeled  upon  his 
knees  three  times  a  day,  and  prayed  and  gave  thanks  be- 
fore God,  as  he  did  aforetime.  He  did  not  even  close  the 
windows.  He  paid  no  attention  to  the  decree  that  had 
been  made,  although  it  forbade  his  doing  as  he  did,  under 
the  penalty  of  being  thrown  to  the  lions.  He  well  un- 
derstood that  although  the  power  of  Media  and  Persia  was 
ordained  of  God,  it  was  not  ordained  to  interfere  in  mat- 
ters of  duty  which  he  owed  only  to  God. 

As  was  to  be  expected,  the  men  who  had  secured 
the  passage  of  the  decree,  found  him  praying  and  mak- 
ing supplications  before  his  God.  They  went  at  once  to 
the  king  and  asked  him  if  he  had  not  signed  a  decree 
that  every  man  who  should  ask  a  petition  of  any  god 
or  man  within  thirty  days,  except  of  the  king,  should 
be  cast  into  the  den  of  lions.     The  king  replied  that  this 


THE    POWERS    THAT    BE.  37 

was  true,  and  that,  according  to  the  law  of  the  Medes 
and  Persians,  it  could  not  be  altered.  Then  they  told 
him  that  Daniel  did  not  regard  the  king,  nor  the  decree^ 
that  he  had  signed,  but  made  his  petition  three  times 
a  day.  The  king  realized  in  a  moment  that  he  had 
been  entrapped  ;  but  there  was  no  remedy.  Those  who 
were  pushing  the  matter,  held  before  him  the  law,  and 
said,  ''Know,  O  king,  that  the  law  of  the  Medes  and 
Persians  is.  That  no  decree  or  statute  which  the  king 
establisheth  may  be  changed."  Nothing  could  be  done  ; 
the  decree,  being  law,  must  be  enforced.  Daniel  was 
cast  to  the  lions.  In  the  morning  the  king  came  to 
the  den  and  called  to  Daniel,  and  Daniel  replied,  "  O 
king,  live  forever  ;  my  God  hath  sent  his  angel,  and  hath 
shut  the  lions'  mouths,  that  they  have  not  hurt  me : 
forasmuch  as  before  him  innocency  was  found  in  me  ; 
and  also  before  thee,  O  king,  have  I  done  no  hurt." 

Thus  again  God  has  shown  that  although  the  powers 
that  be  are  ordained  of  God,  they  are  not  ordained  to 
act  in  things  that  pertain  to  men's  relation  toward  God. 
Christ's  words  are  a  positive  declaration  to  that  effect, 
and  Rom.  13  : 1-9  is  a  further  exposition  of  the  principle. 

Let  us  look  a  moment  at  this  question  from  a  com- 
mon-sense point  of  view  ;  of  course,  all  we  are  saying  is 
common  sense,  but  let  us  have  this  in  addition  :  "  When 
societies  are  formed,  each  individual  surrenders  certain 
rights,  and  as  an  equivalent  for  that  surrender,  has  se- 
cured to  him  the  enjoyment  of  certain  others  appertaining 
to  his  person  and  property,  without  the  protection  of 
which  society  cannot  exist." 

I  have  the  right  to  protect  my  person  and  property 
from  all  invasions.  Every  other  person  has  the  same 
right  ;  but  if  this  right  is  to  be  personally  exercised  in  all 
cases  by  every  one,  then  in  the  present  condition  of  hu- 
man nature,  every  man's  hand  will  be  against  his  neigh- 


38  CIVIL    GOVERNiMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

bor.  That  is  simple  anarchy,  and  in  such  a  condition  of 
affairs  society  cannot  exist.  Now  suppose  a  hundred  of 
us  are  thrown  together  in  a  certain  place  where  there  is 
no  established  order  ;  each  one  has  all  the  rights  of  any 
other  one.  But  if  each  one  is  individually  to  exercise 
these  rights  of  self-protection,  he  has  the  assurance  of 
only  that  degree  of  protection  which  he  alone  can  furnish 
to  himself,  which  we  have  seen  is  exceedingly  slight. 
Therefore  all  come  together,  and  each  surrenders  to  the 
whole  body  that  individual  right  ;  and  in  return  for 
this  surrender,  he  receives  the  power  of  all  for  his  pro- 
tection. He  therefore  receives  the  help  of  the  other 
ninety-nine  to  protect  himself  from  the  invasion  of  his 
rights,  and  he  is  thus  made  many  hundred  times  more 
secure  in  his  rights  of  person  and  property  than  he  is 
without  this  surrender. 

But  what  condition  of  things  can  ever  be  conceived  of 
araong  men  that  would  justify  any  man  in  surrendering 
his  right  to  believe  ?  What  could  he  receive  as  an  equiv- 
alent ?  When  he  has  surrendered  his  right  to  believe,  he 
has  virtually  surrendered  his  right  to  think.  When  he 
surrenders  his  right  to  believe,  he  surrenders  everything, 
and  it  is  impossible  for  him  ever  to  receive  an  equivalent  ; 
he  has  surrendered  his  very  soul.  Eternal  life  depends 
upon  believing  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  man 
who  surrenders  his  right  to  believe,  surrenders  eternal 
life.  Says  the  Scripture,  "With  the  mind  I  myself  serve 
the  law  of  God."  A  man  who  surrenders  his  right  to  be- 
lieve, surrenders  God.  Consequently,  no  man,  no  asso- 
ciation or  organization  of  men,  can  ever  rightly  ask  of  any 
man  a  surrender  of  his  right  to  believe.  Every  man  has 
the  right,  so  far  as  organizations  of  men  are  concerned,  to 
believe  as  he  pleases  ;  and  that  right,  so  long  as  he  is  a 
Protestant,  so  long  as  he  is  a  Christian,  yes,  so  long  as  he 
is  a  man,  he  never  can  surrender,  and  he  never  will. 


THE    POWERS    THAT    BE.  ^  39 

Another  important  question  to  consider  in  this  con- 
nection is,  How  are  the  powers  that  be,  ordained  of 
God  ?  Are  they  directly  and  miraculously  ordained,  or~ 
are  they  providentially  so  ?  We  have  seen  by  the  Script- 
ure that  the  power  of  Nebuchadnezzar  as  king  of  Baby- 
lon, was  ordained  of  God.  Did  God  send  a  prophet  or 
a  priest  to  anoint  him  king.?  or  did  he  send  a  heavenly 
messenger,  as  he  did  to  Moses  and  Gideon.!*  —  Neither. 
Nebuchadnezzar  was  king  because  he  was  the  son  of  his 
father,  who  had  been  king.  How  did  his  father  become 
king.?  —  In  625  B.  c.  Babylonia  was  but  a  province  of  the 
empire  of  Assyria  ;  Media  was  another.  Both  revolted, 
and  at  the  same  time.  The  king  of  Assyria  gave  Nabopo- 
lassar  command  of  a  large  force,  and  sent  him  to  Baby- 
lonia to  quell  the  revolt,  while  he  himself  led  other  forces 
into  Media,  to  put  down  the  insurrection  there.  Nabo- 
polassar  did  his  work  so  well  in  Babylonia  that  the  king 
of  Assyria  rewarded  him  with  the  command  of  that  prov- 
ince, with  the  title  of  King  of  Babylon.  Thus  we  see  that 
Nabopolassar  received  his  power  from  the  king  of  Assyria. 
The  king  of  Assyria  received  his  from  his  father,  Asshur- 
bani-pal  ;  Asshur-bani-pal  received  his  from  his  father, 
Esar-haddon  ;  Esar-haddon  received  his  from  his  father, 
Sennacherib  ;  Sennacherib  received  his  from  his  father, 
Sargon  ;  and  jargon  received  his  from  the  troops  in  the 
field,  that  is,  from  the  people.  Thus  we  see  that  the 
power  of  the  kingdom  of  Babylon,  and  of  Nebuchadnez- 
zar the  king,  or  of  his  son,  or  of  his  son's  son,  was  simply 
providential,  and  came  merely  from  the  people. 

Take,  for  example,  Victoria,  queen  of  Great  Britain. 
How  did  she  receive  her  power.?  —  Simply  by  the  fact 
that  she  was  the  first  in  the  line  of  succession  when 
William  the  Fourth  died.  Through  one  line  she  traces 
her  royal  lineage  to  William  the  Conqueror.  But  who 
was  William  the  Conqueror .?  —  He  was  a  Norman  chief 


40 


CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 


who  led  his  forces  into  England  in  1066,  and  established 
his  power  there.  How  did  he  become  a  chief  of  the 
Normans? — The  Normans  made  him  so,  and  in  that  line 
it  is  clear  that  the  power  of  Queen  Victoria  sprung  only 
from  the  people. 

Following  the  other  line  :  The  house  that  now  rules 
Britain,  represented  in  Victoria,  is  the  house  of  Hanover. 
Hanover  is  a  province  of  Germany.  How  came  the  house 
of  Hanover  to  reign  in  England.?  —  When  Queen  Anne 
died,  the  next  in  the  line  of  succession  was  George  of 
Hanover,  who  became  king  of  England  under  the  title 
of  George  the  First.  How  did  he  receive  his  princely 
dignity.?  —  Through  his  lineage,  from  Henry  the  Lion, 
son  of  Henry  the  Proud,  who  received  the  duchy  of 
Saxony  from  Frederick  Barbarossa,  in  1156.  Henry  the 
Lion,  son  of  Henry  the  Proud,  was  a  prince  of  the  house 
of  Guelph,  of  Swabia.  The  father  of  the  house  of  Guelph 
was  a  prince  of  the  Alamanni  who  invaded  the  Roman 
empire,  and  established  their  power  in  what  is  now  South- 
ern Germany,  and  were  the  origin  of  what  is  now  the 
German  nation  and  empire.  But  who  made  this  man  a 
prince.?  —  The  savage  tribes  of  Germany.  So  in  this  line 
also  the  royal  dignity  of  Queen  Victoria  sprung  from  the 
people. 

And  besides  all  this,  the  imperial  power  of  Queen 
Victoria  as  she  now  reigns  is  circumscribed  —  limited  — 
by  the  people.  It  has  been  related,  and  has  appeared 
in  print,  and  although  the  story  may  not  be  true,  it  will 
serve  to  illustrate  the  point,  that  on  one  occasion,  Glad- 
stone, while  prime  minister  and  head  of  the  House  of 
Commons,  took  a  certain  paper  to  the  queen  to  be  signed. 
She  did  not  exactly  approve  of  it,  and  said  she  would 
not  sign  it.  Gladstone  spoke  of  the  merit  of  the  act,  but 
the  queen  still  declared  she  would  not  sign  it.  Gladstone 
replied,  ''Your  Majesty  w^.?/ sign  it."     ''Must  sign  \''  ex- 


THE    POWERS    THAT    BE.  41 

claimed  the  queen  ;  ''must  sign !  Do  you  know  who  I 
am  ?  I  am  the  queen  of  England."  Gladstone  calmly 
replied,  *'  Yes,  Your  Majesty,  but  I  am  the  PEOPLE  of 
England;"  and  she  had  to  sign  it.  The  people  of  En- 
gland can  command  the  queen  of  England  ;  the  power  of 
the  people  of  England  is  above  that  of  the  queen  of 
England.  She,  as  queen,  is  simply  the  representative  of 
their  power.  '  And  if  the  people  of  England  should  choose 
to  dispense  with  their  expensive  luxury  of  royalty,  and 
turn  their  form  of  government  into  that  of  a  republic,  it 
would  be  but  legitimate  exercise  of  their  right,  and  the 
government  thus  formed,  the  power  thus  established, 
would  be  ordained  of  God  as  much  as  that  which  now  is, 
or  as  any  could  be. 

Personal  sovereigns  in  themselves  are  not  those  re- 
ferred to  in  the  words,  "The  powers  that  be  are  ordained 
of  God."  It  is  the  governmental  power  of  which  the  sov- 
ereign is  the  representative,  and  that  sovereign  receives 
his  power  from  the  people.  Outside  of  the  theocracy  of 
Israel,  there  never  has  been  a  ruler  on  earth  whose  au- 
thority was  not,  primarily  or  ultimately,  expressly  or  per- 
missively,  derived  from  the  people.  It  is  not  particular 
sovereigns  whose  power  is  ordained  of  God,  nor  any 
particular  form  of  government.  It  is  tJie  genius  of  gov- 
ernment itself.  The  absence  of  government  is  anarchy. 
Anarchy  is  only  governmental  confusion.  But  says  the 
Scripture,  "God  is  not  the  author  of  confusion."  God  is 
the  God  of  order.  He  has  ordained  order,  and  he  has 
put  within'  man  himself  that  idea  of  government,  of  self- 
protection,  which  is  the  first  law  of  nature,  and  which 
organizes  itself  into  forms  of  one  kind  or  another,  wher- 
ever men  dwell  on- the  face  of  the  earth.  And  it  is  for 
men  themselves  to  say  what  shall  be  the  form  of  govern- 
ment under  which  they  shall  dwell.  One  people  has  one 
form  ;   another   has   another.     This  genius  of  civil  order 


42  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

springs  from  God  ;  its  exercise  within  its  legitimate  sphere 
is  ordained  of  God  ;  and  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
simply  asserted  the  eternal  truth  of  God,  when  it  said  : 
"Governments  derive  their  just  powers  from  the  consent 
of  the  governed."  It  matters  not  whether  it  be  exercised 
in  one  form  of  government  or  in  another,  the  govern- 
mental power  and  order  thus  exercised  is  ordained  of  God. 
If  the  people  choose  to  change  their  form  of  government, 
it  is  still  the  same  power  ;  it  is  to  be  respected  still, 
because  it  is  still  ordained  of  God  in  its  legitimate  exer- 
cise,—  in  things  pertaining  to  men  and  their  relation  to 
their  fellow-men  ;  but  no  power,  whether  exercised 
through  one  form  or  another,  is  ordained  of  God  to  act 
in  things  pertaining  to  God  ;  nor  has  it  anything  what- 
ever  to.  do  with  men's  relations  toward  God. 

In  the  previous  chapter  we  have  shown  that  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  is  the  only  form  of  govern- 
ment that  has  ever  been  on  earth  which  is  in  harmony 
with  the  principle  announced  by  Christ,  demanding  of 
men  only  that  which  is  Caesar's,  and  refusing  to  enter  in 
any  way  into  the  field  of  man's  relationship  to  God.  This 
Constitution  originated  in  the  principles  of  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence,  and  here  we  have  found  that  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  on  this  point,  simply  asserts 
the  truth  of  God.  The  American  people  do  not  half  ap- 
preciate the  value  of  the  Constitution  under  which  they 
live.  They  do  not  honor  in  any  fair  degree  the  noble  men 
who  pledged  their  lives,  their  fortunes,  and  their  sacred 
honor,  that  these  principles  might  be  the  heritage  of  pos- 
terity. All  honor  to  these  noble  men  !  All  integrity  to 
the  principles  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  !  All 
allegiance  to  the  Constitution  as  it  is,  which  gives  to 
Caesar  all  his  due,  and  leaves  men  free  to  render  to  God 
all  that  he,  in  his  holy  word,  requires  of  them  ! 


CHAPTER    IV. 

THE    RELIGIOUS   ATTACK   UPON   THE   UNITED    STATES 

CONSTITUTION,   AND   THOSE   WHO 

ARE    MAKING   IT. 

The  principles  set  forth  in  the  three  preceding  chap- 
ters are  the  genuine  principles  of  Jesus  Christ.  The 
United  States  Constitution  as  it  is,  with  its  total  separation 
of  religion  and  the  State,  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  these 
principles.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  any  attempt  to 
introduce  into  our  national  Constitution  any  religion,  even 
though  it  be,  professedly,  the  Christian  religion,  would  be 
subversive  of  the  principles  of  Christ.  Any  such  attempt 
would  be  anti-Christian,  and  would  be  fraught  with  the 
greatest  danger  that  could  threaten  the  liberties  of  men, 
and  with  the  worst  evils  that  could  befall  a  nation.  Such  an 
attempt  is  not  only  being  made,  but  is  so  far  advanced  as 
to  make  this  a  subject  of  the  very  first  importance' to 
every  lover  of  Christianity  or  human  rights. 

The  following  resolution  was  offered  in  the  United 
States  Senate,  May  25,  1888,  by  Senator  Henry  W.  Blair, 
of  New  Hampshire.     We  present  an  exact  copy  :  — 


"  50th  Congress, 
1st  Session 


'   I    S.R.  86. 


**  Joint  Resolution,  proposing  an  amendment  to  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  respecting  establishments 
of  religion  and  free  public  schools. 

**  Resolved  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of 
the  United  States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled  (two 

(43) 


44  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

thirds  of  each  House  concurring  therein),  That  the  follow- 
ing amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
be,  and  hereby  is,  proposed  to  the  States,  to  become  valid 
when  ratified  by  the  legislatures  of  three  fourths  of  the 
States,  as  provided  in  the  Constitution  :  — 

/'ARTICLE. 

"  Section  1.  No  State  shall  ever  make- or  maintain  any 
law  respecting  an  establishment  of  religion,  or  prohibiting 
the  free  exercise  thereof. 

"  Sec.  2.  Each  State  in  this  Union  shall  establish  and 
maintain  a  system  of  free  public  schools  adequate  Tor  the 
education  of  all  the  children  living  therein,  between  the 
ages  of  six  and  sixteen  years,  inclusive,  in  the  common 
branches  of  knowledge,  and  in  virtue,  morality,  and  the 
principles  of  the  Christian  religion.  But  no  money  raised 
by  taxation  imposed  by  law,  or  any  money  or  other  prop- 
erty or  credit  belonging  to  any  municipal  organization,  or 
to  any  State,  or  to  the  United  States,  shall  ever  be  appro- 
priated, applied,  or  given  to  the  use  or  purposes  of  any 
school,  institution,  corporation,  or  person,  whereby  in- 
struction or  training  shall  be  given  in  the  doctrines,  tenets, 
belief,  ceremonials,  or  observances  peculiar  to  any  sect, 
denomination,  organization,  or  society,  being,  or  claiming 
to  be,  religious  in  its  character  ;  nor  shall  such  peculiar 
doctrines,  tenets,  belief,  ceremonials,  or  observances  be 
taught  or  inculcated  in  the  free  public  schools. 

''Sec.  3.  To  the  end  that  each  State,  the  United  States, 
and  all  the  people  thereof,  may  have  and  preserve  govern- 
ments republican  in  form  and  in  substance,  the  United 
States  shall  guaranty  to  every  State,  and  to  the  people 
of  every  State  and  of  the  United  States,  the  support  and 
maintenance  of  such  a  system  of  free  public  schools  as 
is  herein  provided. 

"Sec.  4.  That  Congress  shall  enforce  this  article  by 
legislation  when  necessary." 

The  adoption  of  any  such  amendment  as  this  would 
be  but  the  establishment  of  a  national  religion,  and  the 
enforcement  of  that  religion  upon  all  the  States  ;  and 
would  pledge  the  nation  to  an  endless  course  of  religious 


ATTACK    UPON    THE    UNITED    STATES    CONSTITUTION.  45 

legislation  and  religious  controversy.  Upon  their  face 
the  first  two  sections  of  this  proposed  amendment  appear 
to  be  contradictory.  The  first  section  declares  that  *' no 
State  shall  ever  make  or  maintain  any  law  respecting  an 
establishment  of  religion,  or  prohibiting  the  free  exercise 
thereof;"  while  the  firs-t  sentence  of  the  second  section 
declares  that  **each  State  in  the  Union  shall  establish  and 
maintain  a  system  of  free  public  schools,  adequate  for  the 
education  of  all  the  children  living  therein,  between  the 
ages  of  six  and  sixteen  years,  inclusive,  in  the  common 
branches  of  knowledge,  and  in  virtue,  morality,  and  the 
principles  of  the  Christian  religion^  That  is  to  say,  no 
State  shall  ever  make  or  maintain  a  law  respecting  the 
establishment  of  religion  ;  but  every  State  in  this  Union 
shall  make  and  maintain  laws  establishing  the  principles 
of  the  Christian  religion. 

These  two  sections  are  contradictory,  or  else  the  first 
one  means  only  that  no  State  shall  make  or  maintain  any 
law  respecting  an  establishment  of  religion  except  at  the 
dictation  of  the  national  power.  This  last  view  seems  to 
be  the  one  contemplated  in  the  amendment,  as  the  third 
section  plainly  says  that  "  the  United  States  shall  guar- 
anty to  every  State,  and  to  the  people  of  every  State  and 
of  the  United  States,  the  support  and  maintenance  of 
such  a  system  of  free  public  schools  as  is  herein  pro- 
vided." That  is  to  say,  the  United  States  Government 
shall  either  compel  each  State  to  establish  and  maintain 
the  principles  of  the  Christian  religion  in  its  public 
schools,  or  else  the  national  Government  will  do  this 
itself  This  opens  the  broad  question  of  the  centralization 
of  power,  and  of  the  limitations  of  the  national  power 
upon  the  States,  into  the  discussion  of  which  we  will  not 
enter.  Whatever  bearing  this  proposed  amendment  may 
have  upon  those  questions,  there  is  one  thing  which  is 
certain  beyond  all  manner  of  doubt,  and  that  is  that  the 


46  CIVIL   GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

direct  result  of  the  proposed  amendment  is  the  establish- 
ment of  Christianity  as  the  national  religion  of  the  United 
States  ;  for  — 

1.  It  distinctly  pledges  the  national  power  to  the  estab- 
lishment and  maintenance  of  the  principles  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion. 

2.  It  empowers  Congress  to  legislate  upon  the  subject 
of  the  Christian  religion,  and  to  enforce  by  legislation  the 
teaching  of  the  principles  of  that  religion  in  all  the  public 
schools  in  the  nation. 

3.  If  this  proposed,  amendment  should  be  adopted, 
there  must  necessarily  be  a  national  decision  declaring 
just  what  are  the  principles  of  the  Christian  religion. 
Then  when  that  decision  shall  have  been  rendered,  every 
State  and  the  people  of  every  State  will  have  to  receive 
from  the  nation,  as  the  principles  of  the  Christian  relig- 
ion, just  those  things  which  the  nation  shall  have  declared 
to  be  the  principles  of  the  Christian  religion,  and  which 
the  nation  will  have  pledged  itself  to  see  taught  in  the 
public  schools  of  every  State.  In  other  words,  the  people 
of  the  United  States  will  then  have  to  receive  their  re- 
ligion from  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

Therefore,  if  Senator  Blair's  proposed  amendment  to 
the  national  Constitution  does  not  provide  for  the  estab- 
lishment and  maintenance  of  a  national  religion,  then  no 
religion  was  ever  nationally  established  or  maintained  in 
this  world. 

Another  important  question  is,  How  shall  this  national 
decision  as  to  what  are  the  principles  of  the  Christian  re- 
ligion, be  made  ?  It  would  seem  that  the  second  sen- 
tence of  Section  2  makes  provision  for  this.  It  declares 
that  no  "  instruction  or  training  shall  be  given  in  the  doc- 
trines, tenets,  belief,  ceremonials,  or  observances  peculiar 
to  any  sect,  denomination,  organization,  or  society,  being, 
or   claiming  to  be,    religious   in   its   character  ;  nor  shall 


ATTACK    UPON    THE    UNITED    STATES    CONSTITUTION.  47 

such  peculiar  doctrines,  tenets,  belief,  ceremonials,  or  ob- 
servances be  taught  or  inculcated  in  the  free  public 
schools."  As  no  religious  doctrines,  tenets,  or  belief  can 
be  taught  in  the  schools  except  such  as  are  common  to  all 
denominations  of  the  Christian  religion,  it  will  follow  in- 
evitably that  a  national  council  of  the  churches  will  have 
to  be  officially  called,  to  decide  what  are  the  principles 
common  to  all,  and  to  establish  a  national  creed,  which 
shall  be  enforced  and  inculcated  by  national  power  in  all 
the  public  schools  in  the  United  States. 

This  is  confirmed  by  the  author  of  the  proposed 
amendment.  In  a  letter  to  the  secretary  of  the  National 
Reform  Association,  Senator  Blair  says  :  — 

"  I  believe  that  a  text-book  of  instruction  in  the  prin- 
ciples of  virtue,  morality,  and  of  the  Christian  religion, 
can  be  prepared  for  use  in  the  public  schools,  by  the  joint 
effort  of  those  who  represent  every  branch  of  the  Chris- 
tian church,  both  Protestant  and  Catholic,  and  also  those 
who  are  not  actively  associated  with  either." 

This  virtually  says  that  *'by  the  joint  effort  of  those 
who  represent  every  branch  of  the  Christian  church, 
both  Protestant  and  Catholic,"  there  shall  be  framed  a 
national  creed  which  the  United  States  Government  shall 
adopt  and  enforce  in  all  the  public  schools  in  the  nation. 
Does  anybody  who  has  any  acquaintance  with  history 
need  to  be  shown  the  perfect  parallel  between  this  and 
the  formation  of  that  union  of  church  and  State  in  the 
fourth  century,  which  developed  the  papacy  and  all  the 
religious  despotism  and  intolerance  that  has  been  wit- 
nessed  in   Europe   and   America  from  that  time  to  this  ? 

It  was  in  this  way  precisely  that  the  thing  was  worked 
in  the  fourth  century.  Constantine  made  Christianity 
the  recognized  religion  of  the  Roman  empire.  Then  it 
became  at  once  necessary  that  there  should  be  an  impe- 
rial decision  as  to  what  form  of  Christianity  should  be  the 


48  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION, 

imperial  religion.  To  effect  this,  an  imperial  council  was 
necessary  to  formulate  that  phase  of  Christianity  which 
was  common  to  all.  The  Council  of  Nice  was  convened 
by  imperial  command,  and  an  imperial  creed  was  estab- 
lished, which  was  enforced  by  imperial  power.  That 
establishment  of  an  imperial  religion  ended  only  in  the 
imperious  despotism  of  the  papacy.  And  as  surely  as  the 
complete  establishment  of  the  papacy  followed,  and  grew 
out  of,  that  imperial  recognition  of  Christianity  in  the 
fourth  century,  just  so  surely  will  the  complete  establish- 
ment of  a  religious  despotism  after  the  living  likeness  of 
the  papacy,  follow,  and  grow  out  of,  this  national  recog- 
nition of  Christianity  provided  for  in  the  Constitutional 
amendment  proposed  by  Senator  Blair,  and  which  is  now 
pending  in  Congress. 

In  proof  of  this,  we  have  not  only  the  logical  deduction 
and  the  historical  example,  but  in  addition  to  these  we 
have  living,  present  facts.  We  mentioned  above.  Senator 
Blair's  letter  to  the  secretary  of  the  National  Reform 
Association.  This  letter  was  written  in  answer  to  an 
invitation  to  the  senator  to  attend  a  meeting  in  Phila- 
delphia in  support  of  the  proposed  amendment.  The 
initiative  in  bringing  about  this  meeting  was  taken  by 
the  National  Reform  Association.  This  Association  has 
been  working  for  twenty-five  years  to  secure  an  amend- 
ment to  the  national  Constitution,  making  Christianity  the 
established  religion.  Senator  Blair's  proposed  amendment 
furnishes  them  just  what  they  have  so  long  wanted,  and 
ever  since  he  offered  it,  they  have  been  diligently  work- 
ing to  make  it  popular. 

The  Christian  Statesman,  published  in  Philadelphia,  is 
the  official  organ  of  the  Association,  and  in  the  issue  of 
July  12,  1888,  the  editor  says  the  amendment  "should 
receive  the  strenuous  support  of  all  American  Christians." 
In  the  issue  of  July  19,  he  says  :  — 


ATTACK    UPON   THE    UNITED    STATES    CONSTITUTION.  -19 

"  Senator  Blair's  proposed  Constitutional  amendment 
furnishes  an  admirable  opportunity  for  making  the  ideas 
of  the  National  Reform  Association  familiar  to  the  minds 
of  the  people." 

Then  after  mentioning  ''Christianity,  the  religion  of 
the  nation,"  and  "  the  Bible,  the  text-book  of  our  com- 
mon Christianity  in  all  the  schools,"  he  says  :  — 

''These  have  been  our  watch-words  in  the  discussions 
of  a  quarter  of  a  century.  And  now  these  ideas  are  act- 
ually pending  before  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  in 
the  form  of  a  joint  resolution  proposing  their  adoption  as 
a  part  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Here  is 
a  great  opportunity.  Shall  we  boldly  and  wisely  improve 
it .? " 

In  the  Statesman  of  July  26,  1888,  Rev.  J.  C.  K. 
Milligan,  once  a  district  secretary,  and  still  a  leading 
member  of  that  Association,  says  to  the  editor  : — 

"Your  editorial  of  July  12,  on  a  Christian  Constitu- 
tional amendment  pending  in  the  Senate,  is  most  gratify- 
ing news  to  every  Christian  patriot.  It  seems  too  good 
to  be  true.  It  is  too  good  to  prevail  without  a  long  pull, 
a  strong  pull,  and  a  pull  all  together  on  the  part  of  its 
friends  ;  but  it  is  so  good  that  it  surely  will  have  many 
friends  who  will  put  forth  the  necessary  effort.  True,  the 
pending  amendment  has  its  chief  value  in  one  phrase, 
"the  Christian  religion  ;"  but  if  it  shall  pass  into  our  fun- 
damental law,  that  one  phrase  will  have  all  the  potency  of 
Almighty  God,  of  Christ  the  Lord,  of  the  Holy  Bible,  and 
of  the  Christian  world,  with  it.  By  letters  to  senators 
and  representatives  in  Congress,  by  petitions  numerously 
signed  and  forwarded  to  them,  by  local,  State,  and  na- 
tional conventions  held,  and  public  meetings  in  every 
school  district,  such  an  influence  can  quickly  be  brought 
to  bear  as  will  compel  our  legislators  to  adopt  the  meas- 
ure, and  enforce  it  by  the  needed  legislation.  The  Chris- 
tian pulpits,  if  they  would,  could  secure  its  adoption  be» 
fore  the  dog-days  end.  The  National  Reform  Associa- 
tion, the  Christian  Statesman,  and  the  secretaries  in  the 


50  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

field  are  charged  with  this  work,  and  will  not  be  wanting 
as  leaders  in  the  cause." 

In  the  same  paper  of  August  9,  Rev.  R.  C.  Wylie 
praises  the  proposed  amendment,  because  it  would,  if 
adopted,  give  the  National  Reformers  an  advantage 
which  they  have  not  now.     He  says  :  — 

"  We  would  then  have  a  vantage  ground  we  have  not 
now.  The  leading  objection  that  has  been  urged  against 
us  will  have  lost  its  power.  That  objection,  which  has 
such  a  tender  regard  for  the  infidel  conscience,  will  have 
spent  its  force  against  this  amendment,  and  will  be  no 
more  fit  for  use  against  us." 

The  charge  of  an  intention  to  invade  the  rights  of  con- 
science has  been  the  leading  one  against  the  National 
Reform  Association.  But  says  Mr.  Wylie,  If  this 
amendment  is  carried,  this  charge  will  lie  against  the 
amendment,  and  will  spend  itself  there,  while  the  National 
Reformers  will  escape.  This  charge  is  justly  made 
against  the  National  Reformers,  for  they  distinctly  affirm 
that  the  civil  power  has  the  right  to  compel  the  con- 
sciences of  men.  And  the  admission  that  if  the  amend- 
ment were  adopted  the  charge  would  then  lie  against  that, 
is  a  confession  that  the  proposed  amendment,  if  adopted, 
will  invade  the  rights  of  conscience.  And  that  is  the 
truth.     It  will  surely  do  so. 

John  Alexander,  the  father  of  the  movement,  who 
gives  five  hundred  dollars  every  year  to  help  it  foi;ward, 
and  in  his  will  has  provided  that  the  same  amount  shall 
be  paid  every  year  from  his  estate  until  the  movement 
shall  have  proved  a  success,  and  who  gives  a  thousand 
dollars  at  times  besides  all  this,  in  the  C/wistian  States- 
man of  Sept.  6,  1888,  congratulated  the  Association  on 
the  introduction  of  the  Blair  amendment,  and  said,  "  the 
National  Reform  Association  ought  to  spare  no  pains  and 


ATTACK    UPON    THE    UNITED    STATES    CONSTITUTION.  51 

omit  no  effort  which  may  promise  to  secure  its  adoption  ;" 
and  further  says  :  — 

*'  Let  us  begin  without  delay  the  circulation  of  peti- 
tions (to  be  furnished  in  proper  form  by  the  Association), 
and  let  an  opportunity  be  given  to  all  parts  of  the  coun- 
try to  make  up  a  roll  of  petitions  so  great  that  it  will 
require  a  procession  of  wheelbarrows  to  trundle  the 
mighty  mass  into  the  presence  of  the  representatives  of 
the  nation  in  the  House  of  Congress.  .  .  .  Let  a  mass 
convention  of  the  friends  of  the  cause  be  held  in  Wash- 
ington, when  the  Blair  resolution  shall  be  under  dis- 
cussion, to  accompany  with  its  influence  the  presentation 
of  the  petitions,  and  to  take  such  other  action  as  may  be 
deemed  best  to  arouse  the  nation  to  a  genuine  enthusiasm 
in  behalf  of  our  national  Christianity." 

This  is  how  the  Blair  Constitutional  amendment  is 
viewed  by  these  people.  Now  let  us  see  what  they  pro- 
pose to  do  with  it  when  they  get  it. 

The  Christian  Statesman  of  Oct.  2,  1884,  said  :  — 

"  Give  all  men  to  understand  that  this  is  a  Christian 
nation,  and  that,  believing  that  without  Christianity  we 
perish,  we  must  maintain  by  all  means  our  Christian  char- 
acter. Inscribe  this  character  on  our  Constitution.  En- 
force upon  all  who  come  among  us  the  laws  of  Christian 
morality." 

To  enforce  upon  men  the  laws  of  Christian  moral- 
ity, is  nothing  else  than  an  attempt  to  compel  them  to  be 
Christians,  and  does  in  fact  compel  them  to  be  hypocrites. 
It  will  be  seen  at  once  that  this  will  be  but  to  invade  the 
rights  of  conscience,  and  this,  one  of  the  vice-presidents  of 
the  Association  declares,  civil  power  has  the  right  to  do. 
Rev.  David  Gregg,  D.  D.,  now  pastor  of  Park  Street  Church, 
Boston,  a  vice-president  of  the  National  Reform  Associa- 
tion, plainly  declared  in  the  Christian  Statesman  of  June 
5,  1884,  that  the  civil  power  "  has  the  right  to  command 
the  consciences  of  men." 


52  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

Rev.  M.  A.  Gault,  a  district  secretary  and  a  leading- 
worker  of  the  Association,  says  :  — 

**  Our  remedy  for  all  these  malefic  influences,  is  to  have 
the  Government  simply  set  up  the  moral  law  and  recog- 
nize God's  authority  behind  it,  and  lay  its  hand  on  any 
religion  that  does  not  conform  to  it." 

Rev.  E.  B.  Graham,  also  a  vice-president  of  the  Asso- 
ciation, in  an  address  delivered  at  York,  Neb.,  and 
reported  in  the  Christian  Statesman  of  May  21,  1885, 
said  :  — 

"We  might  add  in  all  justice.  If  the  opponents  of  the 
Bible  do  not  like  our  Government  and  its  Christian  feat- 
ures, let  them  go  to  some  wild,  desolate  land,  and  in  the 
name  of  the  Devil,  and  for  the  sake  of  the  Devil,  subdue 
it,  and  set  up  a  government  of  their  own  on  infidel  and 
atheistic  ideas  ;  and  then  if  they  can  stand  it,  stay  there 
till  they  die." 

How  much  different  is  that  from  the  Russian  despot- 
ism .?  In  the  Century  for  April,  1888,  Mr.  Kennan  gave  a 
view  of  the  statutes  of  Russia  on  the  subject  of  crimes 
against  the  faith,  quoting  statute  after  statute  providing 
that  whoever  shall  censure  the  Christian  faith  or  the  ortho- 
dox church,  or  the  Scriptures,  or  the  holy  sacraments,  or 
the  saints,  or  their  images,  or  the  Virgin  Mary,  or  the 
angels,  or  Christ,  or  God,  shall  be  deprived  of  all  civil 
rights,  and  exiled  for  life  to  the  most  remote  parts  of 
Siberia.  This  is  the  system  in  Russia,  and  it  is  in  the 
direct  line  of  the  wishes  of  the  National  Reform  Associa- 
tion, with  this  difference,  however,  that  Russia  is  content 
to  send  dissenters  to  Siberia,  while  the  National  Reform- 
ers want  to  send  them  to  the  Devil,  straight. 

In  a  speech  in  a  National  Reform  convention  held  in 
New  York  City,  Feb.  26,  2Y,  1873,  Jonathan  Edwards, 
D.  D.,  said:  — 


ATTACK    UPON    THE    UNITED    STATES    CONSTITUTION.  53 

"  We  want  State  and  religion,  and  we  are  going  to  have 
it.  It  shall  be  that  so  far  as  the  affairs  of  State  require 
religion,  it  shall  be  religion  —  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ. 
The  Christian  oath  and  Christian  morality  shall  have  in 
this  land  *  an  undeniable  legal  basis.'  We  use  the  word 
religion  in  its  proper  sense,  as  meaning  a  man's  personal 
relation  of  faith  and  obedience  to  God." 

Then  according  to  their  own  definition,  the  National 
Reform  Association  intends  that  the  State  shall  obtrude 
itself  into  every  man's  personal  relation  of  faith  and  obedi- 
ence to  God.     Mr.  Edwards  proceeds  :  — 

"  Now,  we  are  warned  that  to  ingraft  this  doctrine 
upon  the  Constitution  will  be  oppressive  ;  that  it  will  in- 
fringe the  rights  of  conscience  ;  and  we  are  told  that  there 
are  atheists,  deists,  Jews,  and  Seventh-day  Baptists  who 
would  be  sufferers  under  it." 

He  then  defines  the  terms,  atheist,  deist,  Jew,  and 
Seventh-day  Baptist,  and  counts  them  all  atheists,  as 
follows  :  — 

"  These  all  are,  for  the  occasion,  and  so  far  as  our 
amendment  is  concerned,  one  class.  They  use  the  same 
arguments  and  the  same  tactics  against  us.  They  must 
be  counted  together,  which  we  very  much  regret,  but 
which  we  cannot  help.  The  first-named  is  the  leader  in 
the  discontent  and  in  the  outcry — the  atheist,  to  whom 
nothing  is  higher  or  more  sacred  than  man,  and  nothing 
survives  the  tomb.  It  is  his  class.  Its  labors  are  almost 
wholly  in  his  interest ;  its  success  would  be  almost  wholly 
his  triumph.  The  rest  are  adjuncts  to  him  in  this  contest. 
They  must  be  named  from  him  ;  they  must  be  treated  as, 
for  this  question,  one  party." 

W^hat  now  are  the  rights  of  the  National  Reform  class- 
ification of  atheists  }  Mr.  Edwards  asks  the  question  and 
answers  it  thus  :  — 

"What  are  the  rights  of  the  atheist.?  I  would  tolerate 
him  as  I  would  tolerate  a  poor  lunatic  ;  for  in  my  view 
his  mind  is  scarcely  sound.     So  long  as  he  does  not  rave, 


54  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

SO  long  as  he  is  not  dangerous,  I  would  tolerate  him.  I 
would  tolerate  him  as  I  would  a  conspirator.  The  athe- 
ist is  a  dangerous  man." 

Let  us  inquire  for  a  moment  what  are  the  rights  of  the 
atheist.  So  far  as  earthly  governments  are  concerned, 
has  not  any  man  just  as  much  right  to  be  an  atheist  as 
any  other  man  has  to  be  a  Christian  ?  If  not,  why  not  ? 
We  wish  somebody  would  tell.  Has  not  any  man  just  as 
much  right  to  be  an  atheist  as  Jonathan  Edwards  has  to 
be  a  Doctor  of  Divinity  ?  Can  you  compel  him  to  be 
anything  else  ?  But  how  long  does  Mr.  Edwards  propose 
to  tolerate  him.?  —  *' So  long  as  he  does  not  rave."  A 
lunatic  may  be  harmless,  and  be  suffered  to  go  about  as 
he  chooses  ;  yet  he  is  kept  under  constant  surveillance, 
because  there  is  no  knowing  at  what  moment  the  demon 
in  him  may  carry  him  beyond  himself,  and  he  become 
dangerous.  Thus  the  National  Reformers  propose  to  treat 
those  who  disagree  with  them.  So  long  as  dissenters 
allow  themselves  to  be  cowed  down  like  a  set  of  curs,  and 
submit  to  be  domineered  over  by  these  self-exalted  des- 
pots, all  may  go  well  ;  but  if  a  person  has  the  principle  of 
a  man,  and  asserts  his  convictions  as  a  man  ought  to, 
then  he  is  *' raving,"  then  he  becomes  **  dangerous,"  and 
must  be  treated  as  a  raving,  dangerous  lunatic. 

Next,  dissenters  are  to  be  tolerated  as  conspirators 
are.  A  political  conspirator  is  one  who  seeks  to  destroy 
the  Government  itself;  he  virtually  plots  against  the  life 
of  every  one  in  the  Government  ;  and  in  that,  he  has  for- 
feited all  claims  to  the  protection  of  the  Government  or 
the  regard  of  the  people.  And  this  is  the  way  dissenters 
are  to  be  treated  by  the  National  Reformers,  when  they 
shall  have  secured  the  power  they  want.  And  these  are 
the  men  to  whom  Senator  Blair's  proposed  Constitutional 
amendment  is  intensely  satisfactory,  as  that  which,  if 
adopted,  will  assure  them,  in  the  end,  that  which  they  want. 


ATTACK   UPON    THE    UNITED    STATES    CONSTITUTION.  55 

Mr.  Edwards  proceeds:  — 

**  Yes,  to  this  extent  I  will  tolerate  the  atheist  ;   but  no. 
more.     Why  should    I  ?     The    atheist    does    not    tolerate 
me.     He  does  not  smile  either  in  pity  or  in  scorn  upon 
my  faith.     He  hates  my  faith,  and  he  hates  me  for    my 
faith." 

Remember  that  these  men  propose  to  make  this  a 
Christian  nation.  These  are  they  who  propose  themselves 
as  the  supreme  expositors  of  Christian  doctrine  in  this 
nation.  What  beautiful  harmony  there  is  between  these 
words  of  Mr.  Edwards  and  those  of  the  sermon  on  the 
mount !  Did  the  Saviour  say,  Hate  them  that  hate  you  ; 
despise  them  that  will  not  tolerate  you  ;  and  persecute 
them  that  do  not  smile  upon  your  faith  ?  Is  that  the 
sermon  on  the  mount.? — It  is  no^  the  sermon  on  the 
mount.  Jesus  said,  *'  Love  your  enemies  ;  bless  them  that 
curse  you,  do  good  to  them  that  hate  you,  and  pray  for 
them  which  despitefully  use  you,  and  persecute  you  ;  that 
ye  may  be  the  children  of  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven." 
But  this  National  Reform  style  of  Christianity  would  have 
it :  ''  Hate  your  enemies  ;  oppress  them  that  hate  you  ; 
and  persecute  them  who  will  not  smile,  either  in  pity  or 
in  scorn,  upon  your  faith,  that  you  may  be  the  true  chil- 
dren of  the  National  Reform  party  ;  "  and  that  is  what  you 
will  be,  if  you  do  it. 

But  Mr.  Edwards  has  not  yet  finished  displaying  his 
tolerant  ideas  ;  he  says  :  — 

**  I  can  tolerate  difference  and  discussion  ;  I  can  toler- 
ate heresy  and  false  religion  ;  I  can  debate  the  use  of  the 
Bible  in  our  common  schools,  the  taxation  of  church 
property,  the  propriety  of  chaplaincies  and  the  like,  but 
there  are  some  questions  past  debate.  Tolerate  atheism^ 
sir?  There  is  7iothing  out  of  hell  that  I  ivoiild  not  tolerate 
as  soon!  The  atheist  may  live,  as  I  have  said  ;  but,  God 
helping  us,  the  taint  of  his  destructive  creed  shall  not 
defile  any  of  the    civil    institutions  of  all  this  fair    land  ! 


56  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

Let  US  repeat,  atheism  and  Christianity  are  contradictory 
terms.  They  are  incompatible  systems.  TJicy  cannot 
dwell  together  on  the  same  continent!  "'  "^ 

Worse  than  Russia  again  !  Russia  will  suffer  dissenters 
to  dwell  on  the  same  continent  with  her,  though  it  be  in 
the  most  remote  part  of  Siberia.  But  these  men  to  whom 
Senator  Blair's  religious  amendment  is  so  satisfactory, 
propose  to  outdo  even  Russia,  and  not  suffer  dissenters  to 
dwell  on  the  same  continent  with  them.  In  view  of  these 
statements  of  men  now  living,  and  actively  working  for 
this  proposed  amendment,  is  it  necessary  for  us  to  say 
that  Senator  Blair's  religious  amendment  to  the  Constitu- 
tion is  directly  in  the  line  of  a  religious  despotism  more 
merciless  than  that  of  Russia,  and  paralleled  only  by  that 
of  the  papacy  in  the  supremacy  of  its  power  } 

But  as  though  this  were  not  enough,  and  as  though 
their  tolerant  intentions  were  not  sincere  enough,  they 
propose  in  addition  to  all  this  to  join  hands  with  the 
Catholic  Church  and  enlist  her  efforts  in  their  work.  The 
Christian  Statesman  of  Dec.  11,  188-1,  said  :  — 

"Whenever  they  [the  Roman  Catholics]  are  willing  to 
co-operate  in  resisting  the  progress  of  political  atheism, 
we  will  gladly  join  hands  with  them." 

What  does  Pope  Leo  XIII.  command  all  Catholics  to 
do  }  —  This  \  — 

'*  All  Catholics  should  do  all  in  their  power  to  cause 
the  constitutions  of  States,  and  legislation,  to  be  modeled 
on  the  principles  of  the  true  church." 

The  National  Reformers  are  doing  precisely  what  the 
pope  has  commanded  all  Catholics  to  do,  and  why  should  n't 

*  Let  not  the  reader  think  that  because  this  was  spoken  fifteen  years  ago,  it 
is  now  out  of  date;  for  that  Association  to-day  advertises  and  sells  this  speech 
as  representative  National  Reform  literature,  and  the  pamphlet  in  which  it  is 
contained  can  be  had  by  sending  twenty- five  cents  to  the  Christian  Statesman, 
1520  Chestnut  street,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


ATTACK    UPON    THE    UNITED    STATES    CONSTITUTION.  57 

they  gladly  join  hands  with  them  ?  And  we  may  rest 
assured  that  Rome  will  accept  the  National  Reform  proffer 
just  as  soon  as  the  influence  of  that  Association  becomes 
of  sufficient  weight  to  be  profitable  to  her.  Senator 
Blair's  proposed  amendment  is  a  direct  play  into  the  hands 
of  the  papacy. 

Thus  it  is  clearly  demonstrated  that  Senator  Blair's 
proposed  Constitutional  amendment,  if  adopted,  will  only 
open  the  way  to  the  establishment  of  a  religious  despotism 
in  this  dear  land,  and  that  this  is  the  very  use  those  who 
are  most  in  favor  of  it  intend  to  make  of  it.  And  to  favor 
that  amendment  is  to  favor  a  religious  despotism. 

But  the  question  may  be  asked,  whether  we  mean  so- 
berly to  say  that  an  association  that  sets  forth  such  abom- 
inable propositions  can  have  any  influence  at  all  in  this 
enlightened  age,  or  can  be  counted  worthy  of  recognition, 
or  of  the  fellowship  of  respectable  people  ?    Well,  let  us  see. 

Senator  Blair  is  a  respectable  personage,  and  in  the 
letter  before  mentioned  he  said  to  the  secretary  of  that 
Association  :  — 

"  I  earnestly  trust  that  your  movement  may  become 
strong,  general,  in  fact,  all-pervading  ;  for  the  time  has 
fully  come  when  action  is  imperative  and  further  delay  is 
most  dangerous." 

But  whether  any  delay  could  possibly  be  more  danger- 
ous than  would  be  the  success  of  this  movement,  we  leave 
the  reader  to  decide. 

Joseph  Cook,  the  Boston  Monday  lecturer,  is  a  vice- 
president  of  that  Association.  President  Seelye,  of  Am- 
herst College,  is  also  one  of  the  vice-presidents.  Bishop 
Huntington,  of  New  York,  is  another.  The  president  of 
the  W.  C.  T.  U.  is  another  ;  and  so  is  Mrs.  J.  C.  Bateham, 
of  the  National  Union,  and  Mrs.  Woodbridge,  of  the  same 
organization.  Miss  Mary  A.  West,  editor  of  the  Ujiion 
Signal;  Mrs.  Hoffman,  president  of  the  Missouri  Union  ; 


58  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

Mrs.  Lathrap,  president  of  the  Michigan  Union  ;  Mrs. 
Sibley,  of  the  Georgia  Union  ;  Mrs.  J.  Ellen  Foster,  of  the 
Iowa  Union,  —  all  these  are  upon  the  printed  list  of  vice- 
presidents  of  that  Association  for  the  present  year,  and  all 
these  are  eminently  respectable  people.  They  are  people 
of  influence.  In  a  letter  dated  Cliff  Seat,  Ticonderoga, 
N.  Y.,  Aug.  6,  188T,  Joseph  Cook  hopes  to  aid  the  move- 
ment "  by  voice  and  pen." 

In  the  published  reports  of  the  National  Reform  Asso- 
ciation for  the  years  1886-87,  appears  the  following  sug- 
gestion, made  in  1885,  on  the  relationship  between  the 
National  W.  C.  T.  U.  and  the  National  Reform  Associa- 
tion :  — 

**Miss  Francis  E.  Willard,  president  of  the  W.  C.  T.  U., 
suggested  the  creation  of  a  special  department  of  its 
already  manifold  work,  for  the  promotion  of  Sabbath 
observance,  co-operating  with  the  National  Reform  Asso- 
ciation. The  suggestion  was  adopted  at  the  national  con- 
vention in  St.  Louis,  and  the  department  was  placed  in  the 
charge  of  Mrs.  J.  C.  Bateham,  of  Ohio,  as  national  super- 
intendent. Mrs.  Bateham  has  since,  with  her  own  cordial 
assent,  been  made  one  of  the  vice-presidents  of  the  Na- 
tional Reform  Association." 

Again  :  — 

"  It  was  your  secretary's  privilege  this  year  again  to 
attend  the  national  convention.  A  place  was  kindly  given 
for  an  address  in  behalf  of  the  National  Reform  Associa- 
tion, and  thanks  were  returned  by  a  vote  of  the  conven- 
tion. A  resolution  was  adopted  expressing  gratitude  to 
the  National  Association,  for  the  advocacy  of  a  suitable 
acknowledgment  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  the  funda- 
mental law  of  this  professedly  Christian  nation." 

And  again  :  — 

**In  the  series  of  monthly  readings  for  the  use  of  local 
unions  as  a  responsive  exercise,  prepared  or  edited  by  Miss 
Willard,  the  reading  for  last  July  [1886]  was  on  '  God  in 
Government  ; '  that  for  August  was  '  Sabbath  Observance* 


ATTACK   UPON   THE    UNITED    STATES    CONSTITUTION.  5l> 

(prepared  by  Mrs.  Bateham),  and  that  for  September, 
'Our  National  Sins.'  Touching  the  first  and  last  named 
readings,  your  secretary  had  correspondence  with  their^ 
editor  before  they  appeared.  A  letter  has  been  prepared 
to  W.  C.  T.  U.  workers  and  speakers,  asking  them  in 
their  public  addresses  to  refer  to  and  plead  for  the  Chris- 
tian principles  of  civil  government.  The  president  of 
the  National  Union  allows  us  to  say  that  this  letter  is 
sent  with  her  sanction,  and  by  her  desire." 

From  the  Christian  Statesman  of  Nov.  15,  1888,  we 
copy  the  following  from  a  report  of  labor  by  Secretary 
M.  A.  Gault:  — 

"The  four  weeks  I  spent  recently  in  the  eighth  Wiscon- 
sin district,  lecturing  under  the  auspices  of  the  W.  C. 
T.  U.,  were  among  the  most  pleasant  weeks  since  I  went 
into  the  lecture  field.  The  weather  was  unusually  fine, 
and  there  were  but  very  few  meetings  in  which  every- 
thing was  not  in  apple-pie  order.  Ladies  wearing  the 
significant  white  ribbon  met  me  at  the  train,  and  took  me 
often  to  the  most  elegant  home  in  the  town.  .  .  .  The  W. 
C.  T.  U.  affords  the  best  facilities  for  openings  for  such 
workers,  more  than  any  other  organization.  It  is  in 
sympathy  with  the  movement  to  enthrone  Christ  in  our 
Government.  'The  eighth  district  W.  C.  T.  U.,  at  Augusta, 
Wis.,  Oct.  2,  3,  and  4,  passed  this  resolution  :  — 

"  '  Whereas,  God  would  have  all  men  honor  the  Son,  even 
as  they  honor  the  Father  ;  and, — 

*' '  Whereas,  The  civil  law  which  Christ  gave  from  Sinai  is 
the  only  perfect  law,  and  the  only  law  that  will  secure  the 
rights  of  all  classes  ;  therefore, — 

'''Resolved,  That  civil  government  should  recognize 
Christ  as  the  moral  Governor,  and  his  law  as  the  standard 
of  legislation.' 

**  It  is  significant  of  how  the  heart  of  this  great  organ- 
ization is  beating,  when  such  a  resolution  was  passed 
without  a  dissenting  voice  by  a  district  convention  repre- 
senting fifteen  counties." 

What  more  is  necessary  to  show  that  the  National  Re- 
form Association  has  secured  the  closest  possible  alliance 


60  CIVIL   GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

with  the  W.  C.  T.  U.  ?  The  national  convention  of  the 
W.  C.  T.  U.  in  1888,  by  resolution  indorsed  the  proposed 
Blair  amendment  as  deserving  their  *' earnest  and  united 
support." 

But  more  than  this,  the  purpose  of  the  two  associa- 
tions, as  officially  declared,  is  the  same.  The  National 
Reform  Association  is  set  for  the  turning  of  this  Govern- 
ment into  a  theocracy,  and  the  W.  C.  T.  U.  monthly 
reading  for  September,  1886,  said  the  same  thing,  thus  :  — 

"A  true  theocracy  is  yet  to  come,  and  the  enthrone- 
ment of  Christ  in  law  and  law-makers  ;  hence  I  pray  de- 
voutly, as  a  Christian  patriot,  for  the  ballot  in  the  hands 
of  women,  and  rejoice  that  the  National  Woman's  Chris- 
tian Temperance  Union  has  so  long  championed  this 
cause."  - 

Again,  the  National  Reform  Association  proposes  to 
turn  this  Government  into  a  kingdom  of  Christ,  and  the 
W.  C.  T.  U.,  in  national  convention,  1887,  said  :  — 

''The  Woman's  Christian  Temperance  Union,  local, 
State,  national,  and  world-wide,  has  one  vital,  organic 
thought,  one  all-absorbing  purpose,  one  undying  enthu- 
siasm, and  that  is  that  Christ  shall  be  t/izs  world's  king; 
—  yea,  verily,  THIS  WORLD'S  KING  in  its  realm  of  cause  and 
effect,  —  king  of  its  courts,  its  camps,  its  commerce,  —  king 
of  its  colleges  and  cloisters, — king  of  its  customs  and  con- 
stitutions. .  .  .  The  kingdom  of  Christ  must  enter  the 
realm  of  law  through  the  gate-way  of  politics." 

In  conformity  with  this  idea,  the  National  Reformers 
have  bestowed  upon  the  Saviour  the  title  of  "The  Divine 
Politician."  Christ  himself  said,  "  My  kingdom  is  not  of 
this  world."  These  two  organizations  declare  that  Christ 
shall  be  this  world's  king.  There  is  not  the  slightest 
danger  of  mistake,  therefore,  in  saying  that  the  whole 
National  Reform  scheme,  including  Senator  Blair's  pro- 
posed amendment  to  the  Constitution  and  the  theocratical 
Avorkins^s  of  the  W.  C.  T.  U.,  is  ^////'-Christian. 


ATTACK    UPON    THE    UNITED    STATES    CONSTITUTION.  61 

We  believe  that  not  one  tenth  of  the  great  body  of 
the  W.  C.  T.  U.  have  any  idea  of  what  this  alliance  with 
the  National  Reform  Association  amounts  to.  There  are 
none  who  have  more  respect  or  more  good  wishes  for  the 
W.  C.  T.  U.,  in  the  line  of  its  legitimate  work,  than  have 
we.  We  are  heartily  in  favor  of  union,  of  temperance 
union,  of  Christian  temperance  union,  and  of  woman's 
Christian  temperance  union  ;  but  we  are  not  in  favor 
of  any  kind  of  political  Christian  temperance  union, 
nor  of  theocratical  temperance  union.  Would  that  the 
W.  C.  T.  U.  would  stick  to  their  text,  and  work  for 
Christian  temperance  by  Christian  means !  The  Iowa 
Union  has  done  itself  the  credit  to  separate  from  the 
political  workings  of  the  National  Union.  It  ought  to 
go  a  step  farther,  and  separate  from  the  theocratical 
workings  of  the  National  Union,  also  ;  and  all  the  rest 
of  that  body  would  do  well  to  protest  against  both  the 
political  and  the  theocratical  workings  of  its  present 
leadership,  and  especially  against  the  Union's  any  longer 
being  made  a  tool  of  the  National  Reform  Association. 
By  means  of  the  W.  C.  T.  U.,  that  Association  is  having 
a  thousand  times  as  much  influence  as  it  could  have  if 
left  to  itself  to  make  its  own  way. 

The  National  W.  C.  T.  U.  of  1888,  resolved  that, — 

*'  Christ  and  his  gospel,  as  universal  king  and  code, 
should  be  sovereign  in  our  Government  and  political 
affairs." 

Well,  let  us  try  it.  Suppose  the  gospel  were  adopted 
as  the  code  of  this  Government.  It  is  the  duty  of  every 
court  to  act  in  accordance  with  its  code.  There  is  a 
statute  in  that  code  which  says, — 

"If  thy  brother  trespass  against  thee,  rebuke  him  ;  and 
if  he  repent,  forgive  him.  And  if  he  trespass  against 
thee  seven  times  in  a  day,  and  seven  times  in  a  day  turn 
again  to  thee,  saying,  I  repent,  thou  shalt  forgive  him." 


62  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND     RELIGION. 

Remember,  they  have  resolved  that  this  shall  be  the 
code  in  our  Government.  Suppose,  then,  a  man  steals  a 
horse.  He  is  arrested,  tried,  and  found  guilty.  He  says, 
"I  repent."  "Thou  shalt  forgive  him,"  says  the  code,  and 
the  Government  must  conform  to  the  code.  He  is  re 
leased,  and  repeats  the  act  ;  is  again  arrested  and  found 
guilty.  He  says,  "I  repent."  **  Thou  shalt  forgive  him." 
And  if  he  repeats  the  offense  seven  times  in  a  day,  and 
seven  times  in  a  day  turns  to  the  court,  saying,  '*  I  re- 
pent," the  Government  must  forgive  him,  for  so  says  that 
whicli  the  Woman's  Christian  Temperance  Union  has  re- 
solved should  be  the  Governmental  code. 

It  will  be  seen  in  an  instant  that  any  such  system 
would  be  destructive  of  civil  government.  This  is  not 
saying  anything  against  the  Bible,  nor  against  its  princi- 
ples. It  is  only  illustrating  the  absurd  perversion  of  its 
principles  by  these  people  who  want  to  establish  a  system 
of  religious  legislation  here.  God's  government  is  moral, 
and  he  has  made  provision  for  maintaining  his  govern- 
ment with  the  forgiveness  of  transgression.  But  he  has 
made  no  such  provision  for  civil  government,  and  no  such 
provision  can  be  made.  No  such  provision  can  be  made, 
and  civil  government  be  maintained.  The  Bible  reveals 
God's  method  of  saving  those  who  sin  against  his  moral 
government ;  civil  government  is  man's  method  of  pre- 
serving order,  and  has  nothing  to  do  with  sin,  nor  the 
salvation  of  sinners.  Civil  government  arrests  a  man 
and  finds  him  guilty.  If  before  the  penalty  is  executed, 
he  repents,  God  forgives  him  ;  but  the  government  exe- 
cutes the  penalty,  and  it  ought  to. 

Nor  is  this  the  only  ally  of  the  National  Reform  Asso- 
ciation. The  Third-party  Prohibition  party  is  another 
confederate  in  this  attack  upon  the  Constitution.  Geo. 
W.  Baine  is  a  vice-president  of  that  Association.  And 
opposition  to  church  and  State  was  hissed  and  yelled  down 
in  the  State  Prohibition  convention  held  in  San  Francisco 


ATTACK    UPON   THE    UNITED    STATES    CONSTITUTION.  63 

in  1888  ;  and  that  same  convention  adopted  a  platform 
recognizing  the  Lord  as  supreme  Ruler,  ''  to  whose  laws 
all  human  laws  should  conform." 

Sam  Small  was  secretary  of  the  national  Prohibition 
convention  held  at  Indianapolis  in  1888,  and,  as  reported 
in  a  revival  sermon  preached  in  Kansas  City,  January, 
1888,  what  he  wants  to  see  is  this  :  — 

"  I  want  to  see  the  day  come  when  the  church  shall  be 
the  arbiter  of  all  legislation.  State,  national,  and  munici- 
pal ;  when  the  great  churches  of  the  country  can  come 
together  harmoniously,  and  issue  their  edict,  and  the  legis- 
lative powers  will  respect  it,  and  enact  it  into  laws." 

What  more  was  the  papacy  ever  than  that  ?  What 
more  did  it  ever  claim  to  be  ?  What  more  could  it  have 
been  ? 

Sam  Jones  is  another  ardent  Third-party  Prohibitionist. 
In  the  latter  part  of  July,  1888,  he  preached  in  Windsor, 
Canada,  to  an  audience  composed  mostly  of  Americans, 
who  went  over  there  to  hear  him.  Her'e  is  one  of  his 
devout,  elegantly  refined,  and  intensely  instructive  pas- 
sages :  — 

''Now  I  tell  you,  I  think  we  are  running  the  last  polit- 
ical combat  on  the  lines  we  have  been  running  them  on. 
It  is  between  the  Republicans  and  the  Democrats,  this 
contest,  and  it  is  the  last  the  Republicans  will  make  in 
America.  The  Democrats  are  going  in  overwhelmingly. 
Four  years  from  now  the  Prohibition  element  will  break 
the  solid  South.  The  issue  then  will  be,  God  or  no  God, 
drunkenness  or  sobriety,  Sabbath  or  no  Sabbath,  heaven 
or  hell.  That  tvill  be  the  issue.  Then  wq  will  wipe  up 
the  ground  with  the  Democratic  party,  and  let  God  rule 
America  from  that  time  on." 

And  this  the  Chi-istimi  Statesman  inserts  under  the 
heading,  "The  National  Reform  Movement."  It  is  very 
appropriately  placed.  It  is  a  worthy  addition  to  the  liter- 
ature of  the  National  Reform  movement. 


64  CIVIL   GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

On  the  way  home  from  the  Indianapolis  convention,  a 
National  Reformer,  and  a  Third-party  Prohibitionist,  who 
is  a  prominent  speaker,  were  riding  together  in  the  rail- 
way car.  A  personal  acquaintance  of  the  writer  sat  in 
the  next  seat  to  them.  The  National  Reformer  said  that 
the  Prohibition  party  did  not  make  enough  of  National 
Reform  principles  ;  the  Prohibitionist  replied  :  — 

'*  We  are  just  as  much  in  favor  of  those  principles  as 
you  are  ;  but  the  time  has  not  yet  come  to  make  them  so 
prominent  as  you  wish.  But  you  help  put  us  into  power, 
and  we  will  give  you  all  you  want." 

Thus  the  Third-party  Prohibition  party  is  but  another 
ally  of  the  National  Reform  Association. 

When  it  is  seen  that  this  legislation  is  the  first  step  to- 
ward the  establishment  of  a  religious  despotism  modeled 
upon  the  principles  of  the  papacy,  and  when  this  legisla- 
tion is  supported  by  such  men  as  Joseph  Cook,  President 
Seelye,  Bishop  Huntington,  and  the  others  named  ;  by 
the  W.  C.  T.  U.*  and  the  Third-party  Prohibition  party,— 
is  it  not  time  that  somebody  should  say  something  in  be- 
half of  our  Constitution  as  it  is,  and  of  the  rights  of  men 
under  it  .-*  . 


CHAPTER  V. 

RELIGIOUS    LEGISLATION. 

The  proposed  religious  amendment  to  the  national 
Constitution,  introduced  into  the  United  States  Senate  by 
Senator  Blair,  is  not  the  only  attempt  that  is  being  made 
to  commit  Congress  to  a  course  of  religious  legislation. 
The  proposed  religious  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
was  introduced  May  25,  1888,  but  on  May  21,  1888,  the 
same  Senator  had  introduced  the  following  bill,  which  was 
read  twice  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Education 
and  Labor. 

**50th  Congress, 


■\ 


1st  Session.  '  ^-  ^^^^' 

"  A  Bill  to  secure  to  the  people  the  enjoyment  of  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  commonly  known  as  the  Lord's  day, 
as  a  day  of  rest,  and  to  promote  its  observance  as  a  day 
of  religious  worship. 

"  Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  a?id  House  of  Representa- 
tives of  the  United  States  of  America  in  Congress  assent- 
bledy  That  no  person,  or  corporation,  or  the  agent,  servant, 
or  employee  of  any  person  or  corporation,  shall  perform 
or  authorize  to  be  performed  any  secular  work,  labor,  or 
business  to  the  disturbance  of  others,  works  of  necessity, 
mercy,  and  humanity  excepted  ;  nor  shall  any  person 
engage  in  any  play,  game,  or  amusement,  or  recreation, 
to  the  disturbance  of  others,  on  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
commonly  known  as  the  Lord's  day,  or  during  any  part 
thereof,  in  any  territory,  district,  vessel,  or  place  subject 
to  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  ;  nor 
shall  it  be  lawful  for  any  person  or  corporation  to  receive 
5  (65) 


Q6  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

pay  for  labor  or  service  performed  or  rendered  in  violation 
of  this  section. 

"  Sec.  2.  That  no  mails  or  mail  matter  shall  hereafter 
be  transported  in  time  of  peace  over  any  land  postal- 
route,  nor  shall  any  mail  matter  be  collected,  assorted, 
handled,  or  delivered  during  any  part  of  the  first  day  of 
the  v^^eek :  Provided,  That  whenever  any  letter  shall 
relate  to  a  work  of  necessity  or  mercy,  or  shall  concern 
the  health,  life,  or  decease  of  any  person,  and  the  fact 
shall  be  plainly  stated  upon  the  face  of  the  envelope  con- 
taining the  same,  the  postmaster-general  shall  provide 
for  the  transportation  of  such  letter. 

^  **Sec.  3.  That  the  prosecution  of  commerce  between  the 
States  and  with  the  Indian  tribes,  the  same  not  being  work 
of  necessity,  mercy,  or  humanity,  by  the  transportation  of 
persons  or  property  by  land  or  water  in  such  way  as  to 
interfere  with  or  disturb  the  people  in  the  enjoyment  of 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  or  any  portion  thereof,  as  a  day 
of  rest  from  labor,  the  same  not  being  labor  of  necessity, 
mercy,  or  humanity,  or  its  observance  as  at  day  of  religious 
worship,  is  hereby  prohibited  ;  and  any  person  or  corpora- 
tion, or  the  agent,  servant,  or  employee  of  any  person  or 
corporation  who  shall  willfully  violate  this  section,  shall 
be  punished  by  a  fine  of  not  less  than  ten  nor  more  than  one 
thousand  dollars,  and  no  service  performed  in  the  prosecu- 
tion of  such  prohibited  commerce  shall  be  lawful,  nor  shall 
any  compensation  be  recoverable  or  be  paid  for  the  same. 

"  Sec.  4.  That  all  military  and  naval  drills,  musters,  and 
parades,  not  in  time  of  active  service  or  immediate  prep- 
aration therefor,  of  soldiers,  sailors,  marines,  or  cadets  of 
the  United  States,  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  except 
assemblies  for  the  due  and  orderly  observance  of  religious 
worship,  are  hereby  prohibited  ;  nor  shall  any  unnecessary 
labor  be  performed  or  permitted  in  the  military  or  naval 
service  of  the  United  States  on  the  Lord's  day. 

"Sec.  5.  That  it  shall  be  unlawful  to  payor  to  receive 
payment  or  wages  in  any  manner  for  service  rendered,  or 
for  labor  performed,  or  for  the  transportation  of  persons  or 
property,  in  violation  of  the  provisions  of  this  act,  nor  shall 
any  action  lie  for  the  recovery  thereof,  and  when  so  paid, 
whether  in  advance  or  otherwise,  the  same  may  be  recov- 
ered back  by  whoever  shall  first  sue  for  the  same. 


RELIGIOUS    LEGISLATION.  G7 

"  Sec.  6.  That  labor  or  service  performed  and  rendered 
on  the  first  day  of  the  week  in  consequence  of  accident, 
disaster,  or  unavoidable  delays  in  making  the  regular  con^ 
nections  upon  postal-routes  and  routes  of  travel  and  trans- 
portation, the  preservation  of  perishable  and  exposed 
property,  and  the  regular  and  necessary  transportation 
and  delivery  of  articles  of  food  in  condition  for  healthful 
use,  and  such  transportation  for  short  distances  from  one 
State,  district,  or  Territory  into  another  State,  district,  or 
Territory  as  by  local  laws  shall  be  declared  to  be  neces- 
sary for  the  public  good,  shall  not  be  deemed  violations  of 
this  act,  but  the  same  shall  be  construed  so  far  as  possible 
to  secure  to  the  whole  people  rest  from  toil  during  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  their  mental  and  moral  culture, 
and  the  religious  observance  of  the  Sabbath  day." 

The  first  section  of  this  bill  is  contrary  to  the  word  of 
Christ.  In  enjoining  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  day,  it 
demands  that  men  shall  render  to  Caesar  that,which  is  the 
Lord's.  But  Christ  said,  "  Render  therefore  to  Ccesar 
the  things  which  are  Caesar's  ;  and  unto  God  the  things 
that  are  God'sT  That  which  is  the  Lord's  is  not  to  be 
rendered  to  Caesar,  but  to  the  Lord.  Caesar  is  civil  govern- 
ment ;  therefore,  we  are  not  to  render  to  civil  government 
that  which  is  the  Lord's  ;  with  that  which  is  the  Lord's 
Caesar  has  nothing  to  do.  Consequently  no  civil  govern- 
ment can  ever  of  right  have  anything  to  do,  in  legislative 
capacity,  with  the  Lord's  day.  Senator  Blair's  bill,  in  leg- 
islating upon  that  which  pertains  to  the  Lord,  plainly  sets 
itself  against  the  word  of  Christ,  and  is,  therefore,  anti- 
Christian. 

Again,  this  section  declares  that  no  person  shall  do 
any  work,  nor  "engage  in  any  play,  game,  or  amusement, 
or  recreation,  to  the  disturbance  of  others,  on  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  commonly  known  as  the  Lord's  day,  or 
during  any  part  thereof."  This  leaves  it  entirely  with 
the  other  man  to  say  whether  that  which  you  do  disturbs 
him  ;  and  that  is  only  to  make  every  man's  action  on  Sun- 
day subject  to  the  whim  or  caprice  of  his  neighbor.     And 


68  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

everybody  knows  that  it  requires  a  very  slight  thing  to- 
make  a  man  an  offender  in  the  eyes  of  one  who  has  a 
spite  or  a  prejudice  against  him.  At  the  Illinois  State 
Sunday-law  convention  for  1888  (Nov.  20,  21),  Dr.  R. 
O.  Post,  of  Springfield,  made  a  speech  on  the  subject  of 
"Sunday  Recreation,*'  in  which  he  laid  down  the  follow- 
ing rule  on  the  subject :  — 

**  There  is  no  kind  of  recreation  that  is  proper  or  profit- 
able on  Sunday,  outside  of  the  home  or  the  sanctuary." 

Only  let  such  a  law  as  is  embodied  in  this  bill  of 
Senator  Blair's,  be  of  force  where  R.  O.  Post,  D.  D.,  is,  and 
any  kind  of  recreation  outside  of  the  home  or  the 
sanctuary  would  be  sure  to  disturb  him,  and  the  one  en- 
gaged in  the  recreation  could  be  arrested  and  prosecuted. 
But,  it  may  be  argued,  that  no  judge  or  jury  would  up- 
hold any  such  prosecution.  That  is  not  at  all  certain,  as 
we  shall  yet  see  ;  but  whether  or  not  it  is  so,  it  is  certain 
that  if  your  neighbor  should  say  that  what  you  did  dis- 
turbed him,  under  such  a  law  as  that  he  could  have  you 
arrested,  and  put  to  the  inconvenience  and  expense  of 
defending  yourself  before  the  court.  In  1887  the  city  of 
San  Francisco,  Cal.,  had  an  ordinance  on  another  subject 
that  embodied  the  very  principle  of  this  clause  of  the  Blair 
Sunday  bill.     It  read  as  follows  :  — 

"  No  person  shall  in  any  place  indulge  in  conduct  hav- 
ing a  tendency  to  annoy  persons  passing  or  being  upon 
the  public  highway,  or  upon  adjacent  premises." 

It  is  easy  to  see  that  the  principle  of  this  ordinance  is 
identical  with  that  of  the  clause  in  the  first  section  of  the 
Blair  bill,  which  forbids  anything  "  to  the  disturbance  of 
others." 

While  that  San  Francisco  ordinance  was  in  force,  a 
man  by  the  name  of  Ferdinand  Pape  was  distributing 
some  circulars  on    the    street,    which    *' annoyed"   some- 


RELIGIOUS    LEGISLATION.  ^69 

body.  He  was  arrested.  He  applied  to  the  Superior 
Court  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  claiming  that  the 
offense  charged  against  him  did  not  constitute  a  crime, 
and  that  the  ordinance  making  such  action  an  offense  was 
invalid  and  void,  because  it  was  unreasonable  and  un- 
certain.    The  report  of  the  case  says  :  — 

"  The  writ  was  made  returnable  before  Judge  Sullivan, 
and  argued  by  Henry  Hutton  in  behalf  of  the  imprisoned 
offender.  Disposing  of  the  question,  the  Judge  gave 
quite  a  lengthy  written  opinion,  in  which  he  passed  a 
somewhat  severe  criticism  upon  the  absurdity  of  the 
contested  ordinance,  and  discharged  Pape  from  custody. 
Said  the  Judge  :  — 

" '  If  the  order  be  law,  enforceable  by  fine  and  im- 
prisonment, it  is  a  crime  to  indulge  in  any  conduct,  how- 
ever innocent  and  harmless  in  itself,  and  however  uncon- 
sciously done,  which  has  a  tendency  to  annoy  other  per- 
sons. The  rival  tradesman  who  passes  one's  store  with 
an  observant  eye  as  to  the  volume  of  business,  is  guilty 
of  a  crime,  because  the  very  thought  of  rivalry  and  re- 
duction of  business  has  a  tendency  to  annoy.  The  pass- 
ing of  the  most  lenient  creditor  has  a  tendency  to  annoy, 
because  it  is  a  reminder  of  obligations  unfulfilled.  The 
passing  of  a  well-clad,  industrious  citizen,  bearing  about 
him  the  evidences  of  thrift,  has  a  tendency  to  annoy  the 
vagabond,  whose  laziness  reduces  him  to  a  condition  of 
poverty  and  discontent.  The  importunities  of  the  news- 
boy who  endeavors  with  such  persistent  energy  to  dis- 
pose of  his  stock,  has  a  tendency  to  annoy  the  prominent 
citizen  who  has  already  read  the  papers,  or  who  expects 
to  find  them  at  his  door  as  he  reaches  home.  He  who 
has  been  foiled  in  an  attempted  wrong  upon  the  person 
or  property  of  another,  finds  a  tendency  to  annoy  in  the 
very  passing  presence  of  the  person  whose  honesty  or  in- 
genuity has  circumvented  him.  And  so  instances  might 
be  multiplied  indefinitely  in  which  the  most  harmless  and 
inoffensive  conduct  has  a  tendency  to  annoy  others.  If 
the  language  of  the  ordinance  defines  a  criminal  offense, 
it  sets  a  very  severe  penalty  of  liberty  and  property  upon 
conduct  lacking  in  the  essential  element  of  criminality. 


70  CIVIL   GOVERNMENT   AND   RELIGION. 

"'But  it  may  be  said  that  courts  and  juries  will  not 
use  the  instrumentality  of  this  language  to  set  the  seal  of 
condemnation  on  unoffending  citizens,  and  to  unjustly 
deprive  them  of  their  liberty  and  brand  them  as  criminals. 
The  law  countenances  no  such  dangerous  doctrine,  coun- 
tenances no  principle  so  subversive  of  liberty,  as  that  the 
life  or  liberty  of  a  subject  should  be  made  to  depend  upon 
the  whim  or  caprice  of  judge  or  jury,  by  exercising  a  dis- 
cretion in  determining  that  certain  conduct  does  or  does 
not  corrie  within  the  inhibition  of  a  criminal  action.  The 
law  should  be  engraved  so  plainly  and  distinctly  on  the 
legislative  tables  that  it  can  be  discerned  alike  by  all  sub- 
jects of  the  commonwealth,  whether  judge  upon  the  bench, 
juror  in  the  box,  or  prisoner  at  the  bar.  Any  condition 
of  the  law  which  allows  the  test  of  criminality  to  depend 
on  the  whim  or  caprice  of  judge  or  juror,  savors  of 
tyranny.  The  language  employed  is  broad  enough  to 
cover  conduct  which  is  clearly  within  the  Constitutional 
rights  of  the  citizen.  It  designates  no  border-line  which 
divides  the  criminal  from  the  non-criminal  conduct.  Its 
terms  are  too  vague  and  uncertain  to  lay  down  a  rule  of 
conduct.  In  my  judgment,  the  portion  of  the  ordinance 
here  involved  is  uncertain  and  unreasonable.'" 

This  decision  applies  with  full  force  to  Senator  Blair's 
proposed  national  Sunday  law.  Under  that  law,  all  that 
would  be  necessary  to  subject  any  person  to  a  criminal 
prosecution,  would  be  for  him  to  engage  in  any  sort  of 
play,  game,  amusement,  or  recreation  on  Sunday  ;  because 
the  National  Reformers  are  as  much  in  favor  of  this  Sunday 
law  as  they  are  in  favor  of  the  Blair  religious  amendment  to 
the  Constitution,  and  there  are  many  of  those  rigid  Na- 
tional Reformers  who  would  be  very  much  **  disturbed" 
by  any  amusement  or  recreation  indulged  in  on  Sunday, 
however  innocent  it  might  be  in  itself.  And  it  is  left 
entirely  to  the  whim  or  the  caprice  of  the  "  disturbed  "  one, 
or  of  the  judge  or  jury,  to  say  whether  the  action  really 
has  or  has  not  disturbed  him. 

The  California  decision  is,  that  such  a  statute  '*  sets  a 
very  severe  penalty  of  liberty  and  property  upon  conduct 


RELIGIOUS    LEGISLATION.  71 

lacking  in  the  essential  element  of  criminality."  California 
courts  *' countenance  no  such  dangerous  doctrine,  coun- 
tenance no  principle  so  subversive  of  liberty,"  or  which  so 
"  savors  of  tyranny,"  as  that  which  is  embodied  in  the  Blair 
Sunday  bill. 

Section  4  is  directly  in  the  line  of  Constantine's  Sun- 
day legislation.  He,  however,  went  a  step  farther,  and 
caused  his  soldiers  to  parade  expressly  for  worship  on 
Sunday,  and  wrote  out  a  prayer  which  he  had  them  all 
repeat  at  a  given  signal.  Something  like  this  mignt  appro- 
priately follow,  should  this  bill  become  a  law  ;  because,  as 
religious  observance  and  religious  worship  are  the  objects 
of  the  bill,  why  should  not  the  soldiers  be  required  to  pray 
on  Sunday  as  well  as  otherwise  to  observe  the  day  relig- 
iously ? 

We  shall  not  undertake  to  comment  on  every  section  of 
the  bill,  but  Section  5  deserves  to  be  particularly  noticed. 
This  section  provides  that  if  any  person  works  for  any 
other  person  on  Sunday,  and  receives  payment  for  it  at  any 
time,  then  any  person  in  the  wide  world,  except  the  par- 
ties concerned,  can  enter  suit,  and  recover  the  money  so 
paid.  If  you  work  for  me  on  Sunday,  and  I  pay  you  for 
it,  then  the  first  man  that  finds  it  out  can  sue  you 
and  get  the  money.  That  is  what  the  bill  says.  When 
wages  are  paid  for  Sunday  work,  ''whether  in  advance 
or  otherwise,  the  same  may  be  recovered  back  by  tu/io- 
ever  shall  first  sue  for  the  same."  Whoever  is  a  uni- 
versal term.  Therefore,  this  bill  deliberately  proposes 
that  when  any  man  who  is  subject  to  the  exclusive  juris- 
diction of  the  United  States,  receives  payment  for  work 
done  on  Sunday,  except  for  work  of  necessity  or  mercy, 
he  may  be  sued  for  that  money  by  whoever  first  learns 
that  he  has  received  it,  and  that  person  shall  get  the 
money. 

To  think  that  any  such  legislation  as  is  embodied  in 
this  section  should  ever  be  thought  of  by  any  sane  person, 


72  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

is  sufficiently  astonishing ;  but  that  it  should  not  only 
have  been  thought  of,  but  should  have  been  embodied 
in  a  bill,  and  soberly  introduced  into  the  United  States 
Senate,  is  simply  astounding.  It  almost  surpasses  belief. 
But  here  are  the  facts  which  demonstrate  that  such  things 
have  been  done  in  this  land  of  liberty,  in  this  year  of  the 
nineteenth  century.  When  the  time  of  a  United  States 
senator  is  employed  in  such  legislation  as  that,  then  whose 
liberties  are  secure  ? 

The  last  section  shows  the  object  of  the  entire  bill ; 
and  that  is,  "  to  secure  to  the  whole  people  rest,  .  .  .  and 
the  religious  observance  of  the  Sabbath  day."  No  one, 
therefore,  need  attempt  to  evade  the  force  of  objections 
against  this  bill  by  saying  that  it  is  not  the  religious,  but 
the  cimly  observance  of  the  day  that  is  required  ;  because 
it  is  plainly  declared  in  the  bill  itself,  that  it  is  not  only 
to  secure  rest  to  all  the  people,  but  tiiat  it  is  also  to  secure 
the  religious  observance  of  the  Sabbath  day.  There  is 
not  a  single  reference  in  the  bill  to  any  such  thing  as  the 
civil  observance  of  the  day.  The  word  civil  is  not  used 
in  the  bill.  It  is  a  religious  bill  wholly.  The  title  of  the 
bill  declares  that  its  object  is  to  secure  to  the  people  the 
enjoyment  of  the  Lord's  day  as  a  day  of  rest,  "  and  to 
promote  its  observance  as  a  day  of  religious  worsJiip!' 
The  first  section  defines  the  Lord's  day ;  the  second 
section  refers  to  the  day  as  one  of  worship  and  rest  ;  the 
third  section  refers  to  it  as  a  day  of  religious  worship  ;  the 
fourth  section  refers  to  its  observance  as  that  of  religious 
worship  ;  and  the  sixth  section  plaisly  declares,  what  is 
apparent  throughout,  that  the  object  of  the  bill  is  *'to 
secure  to  the  whole  people  rest,  .  .  .  and  the  religious 
observance  of  the  Sabbath  day,"  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week. 

It  is  the  religious  observance  of  the  day  that  its  pro- 
moters, from  one  end  of  the  land  to  the  other,  have  in 


RELIGIOUS    LEGISLATION.  73 

view.     In  the   Washington   Sunday  convention,  Dec.  12, 

1888,  Dr.  Crafts  said  :  — 

"Taking  religion  out  of  the  day,  takes  the  rest  out." 
In  the  ''  Boston  Monday  Lectures,"  1887,  Joseph  Cook, 

lecturing  on  the  subject  of  Sunday  laws,  said  :  — 

"  The  experience  of  centuries  shows,  however,  that 
you  w^ill  in  vain  endeavor  to  preserve  Sunday  as  a  day 
of  rest,  unless  you  preserve  it  as  a  day  of  worship. 
Unless  Sabbath  observance  be  founded  upon  religious 
reasons,  you  will  not  long  maintain  it  at  a  high  standard 
on  the  basis  of  economic  and  physiological  and  political 
considerations  only." 

And  in  the  Illinois  State  Sunday  convention  held  in 
Elgin,  Nov.  8,  1887,  Dr.  W.  W.  Everts  declared  Sunday 
to  be  ''the  test  of  all  religion." 

Sunday  is  a  religious  institution  wholly  ;  Sunday  leg- 
islation, wherever  found,  is  religious  legislation  solely  ; 
and  as  we  have  seen.  Senator  Blair's  Sunday  bill  does 
not  pretend  to  be  anything  else  than  religious  legislation. 
Being  therefore  as  it  is,  religious  legislation,  it  is  clearly 
unconstitutional.  In  proof  of  this,  we  submit  the  follow- 
ing considerations  :  — 

All  the  powers  of  Congress  are  delegated  powers.  It 
has  no  other  power  ;  it  cannot  exercise  any  other.  Ar- 
ticle X.  of  Amendments  to  the  Constitution  expressly 
declares  that, — 

*'  The  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States  by 
the  Constitution,  nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States,  are 
reserved  to  the  States  respectively,  or  to  the  people." 

In  all  the  powers  thus  delegated  to  Congress,  there  is 
no  hint  of  any  power  to  legislate  upon  any  religious  ques- 
tion, or  in  regard  to  the  observance  of  any  religious 
institution  or  rite.  Therefore,  Senator  Blair's  Sunday  bill, 
being  a  religious  bill,  is  unconstitutional ;  and  any  legis- 
lation with  resfard  to  it  will  be  unconstitutional.     More 


74  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

than  this,  Sunday  being  a  religious  institution,  any  legis- 
lation by  Congress  in  regard  to  its  observance,  w^ill  be 
unconstitutional  as  long  as  the  United  States  Constitu- 
tion shall  remain  as  it  now  is.  Nor  is  this  all.  The 
Nation  has  not  been  left  in  doubt  as  to  whether  the  fail- 
ure to  delegate  this  power  was  or  was  not  intentional. 
The  first  Amendment  to  the  Constitution,  in  declaring 
that,  "  Congress  shall  make  no  law  respecting  an  estab- 
lishment of  religion,  or  prohibiting  the  free  exercise 
thereof,"  shows  that  the  failure  to  delegate  such  power 
was  intentional,  and  makes  the  intention  emphatic  by 
absolutely  prohibiting  Congress  from  exercising  any 
power  with  regard  to  religion.  It  is  impossible  to  frame 
a  law  on  the  subject  of  religion  that  will  not  in  some  way 
prohibit  the  free  exercise  of  religion.  Therefore  the  first 
Amendment  to  the  Constitution  absolutely  prohibits  Con- 
gress from  ever  making  any  law  with  regard  to  any 
religious  subject,  or  the  observance  of  any  religious  rite 
or  institution.  Senator  Blair's,  bill,  being  a  religious  bill, 
is  shown  by  this  second  count  to  be  unconstitutional. 

The  National  Reformers  know  and  have  been  contend- 
ing for  twenty-five  years  that  for  Congress  to  make  any 
Sunday  laws  would  be  unconstitutional.  Yet  the  National 
Reform  Association  is  one  of  the  most  prominent  agencies 
in  urging  forward  Senator  Blair's  national  Sunday  bill. 
And  this  only  shows  that  they  are  willing  to  resort  to 
unconstitutional  means  to  secure  their  coveted  power, 
and  to  accomplish  their  purposes.  As  for  Dr.  Crafts  and 
his  fellow-workers,  the  W.  C.  T.  U.,  etc.,  whether  or  not 
they  know  it  to  be  unconstitutional,  we  do  not  know. 
Whether  they  would  care,  even  though  they  did  know, 
we  are  not  prepared  to  say,  for  this  reason  :  In  the  an- 
nouncements of  the  Washington  national  Sunday  con- 
vention, Dec.  11-13,  1888,  it  had  been  stated  that  the 
church  in  which   the  convention  was   to    meet  would  be 


RELIGIOUS    LEGISLATION.  75 

festooned  with  the  names  of  six  millions  of  petitioners  ; 
but  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  first  meeting,  it  was 
stated  that  there  v^^x^  fourteen  millions  of  them.  A  ques- 
tion was  sent  up  asking  how  the  number  could  have  grown 
so  much  larger  so  suddenly.  Mrs.  Bateham  was  recalled 
to  the  platform  to  answer  the  question,  and  when  she 
answered  it,  the  cause  of  such  a  sudden  and  enormous 
growth  was  explained  by  the  fact  that  Cardinal  Gibbons 
had  written  a  letter  indorsing  the  Blair  bill,  and  solely 
upon  the  strength  of  his  name,  seven  million  two  hundred 
thousand  Catholics  were  counted  as  petitioners. 

This  was  not  an  entire  answer  to  the  question,  because 
the  Cardinal's  letter  did  not  authorize  any  such  use  of  it 
as  they  had  made,  at  least  so  much  of  it  as  was  made 
public  did  not.  The  whole  of  the  letter  was  not  made 
public,  because,  Dr.  Crafts  said,  it  was  for  the  Senate 
Committee.  But  so  much  of  it  as  was  read  merely  re- 
ferred to  the  action  of  the  Baltimore  Council  in  command- 
ing a  stricter  observance  of  Sunday,  and  said  :  — 

"  I  am  most  happy  to  add  my  name  to  those  of  the 
milli6ns  of  others  who  are  laudably  contending  against 
the  violation  of  the  Christian  Sabbath  by  unnecessary 
labor,  and  who  are  endeavoring  to  promote  its  decent  and 
proper  observance  by  judicious  legislation." 

This  was  all.  He  said,  "  I  am  happy  to  add  my  name,'' 
etc.  He  did  not  say  that  he  added,  or  that  he  wished  to 
add,  seven  million  two  hundred  thousand  others  with  his 
name,  or  in  his  name.  But  the  overweening  anxiety  of 
these  Christian  Protestant  {})  Sunday-law  workers  for 
petitions,  was  so  great  that,  without  a  twinge,  they  could 
and  did  multiply  one  Catholic  name  into  seven  million 
two  hundred  thousand  ajid  one.  Yet  this  was  not  so 
much  to  be  wondered  at,  because  the  same  principle  had 
been  acted  upon  before  throughout  the  country,  and 
when  five  hundred  petitioners  could  be  made  out  of  one 


76  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

hundred,  and  two  hundred  and  forty  thousand  out  of  two 
hundred  and  forty,  it  was  perfectly  easy  and  entirely  con- 
sistent to  make  seven  million  two  hundred  thousand  and 
one  out  of  one. 

This  thing  was  perfectly  consistent  also  with  the  prin- 
ciple in  another  point.  The  petition  read  :  ''  We,  the  under- 
signed, adult  residents  of  the  United  States,  twenty-one 
years  of  age  or  more,  hereby  petition,"  etc.  In  counting 
these  seven  million  two  hundred  thousand  petitioners  in  be- 
half of  the  Sunday  law,  they  thereby  certified  that  all  these 
were  Catholics  "  twenty-one  years  of  age  or  more."  But 
there  was  not  a  man  in  that  convention,  and  there  is  not 
a  woman  in  the  Woman's  Christian  Temperance  Union, 
who  does  not  know  that  there  are  not  that  many  Cath- 
olics in  the  United  States  ''  twenty-one  years  of  age  or 
more."  They  virtually  certified  that  all  the  Catholics  in 
the  United  States  are  "  twenty-one  years  of  age  or  more," 
for  they  distinctly  announced  that  "all  the  Roman  Cath- 
olics "  were  petitioning  for  the  Sunday  law.  But  when 
they  had  virtually  certified  the  same  thing  of  the  Protest- 
ant churches  throughout  the  country,  why  should  they 
not  go  on  and  swing  in  ''all  the  Roman  Catholics"  in  the 
same  way  ?  They  could  do  the  one  just  as  honestly  as 
they  could  do  the  other.  When  men  and  women  pro- 
fessing themselves  to  be  Protestant  Christians  will  do 
such  things  as  that  to  carry  the  Catholic  Church  with 
them,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  if  they  should  be  will- 
ing to  resort  to  unconstitutional  means  to  make  their 
religious  zeal  effective  in  national  law. 

But  when  people  professing  to  be  Protestant  Chris- 
tians will  do  such  things  as  that  to  carry  with  them  the 
weight  of  the  Catholic  Church,  is  it  not  time  they  ceased 
to  call  themselves  Protestants  t  And  when  they  will  do 
such  things  for  any  purpose,  is  it  not  about  time  they 
should  cease  to  call  themselves  Christians  }  Christia^tity 
means  honesty. 


RELIGIOUS    LEGISLATION.  77 

One  more  consideration  just  here :  Is  it  consistent 
with  either  Protestant  religious  principles  or  American 
Constitutional  principles  to  recognize  the  propriety  of  one 
man's  absorbing  into  himself  the  personality  of  seven 
million  two  hundred  thousand  people,  as  they  have 
granted  to  Cardinal  Gibbons  in  this  case  ? 

By  the  evidences,  logical,  legal.  Constitutional,  and 
scriptural,  which  we  have  presented  in  this  chapter,  it  is 
demonstrated  that  the  Blair  national  Sunday  bill  is  un- 
certain and  unreasonable  ;  that  it  is  subversive  of  liberty, 
and  savors  of  tyranny  ;  and  that  it  is  unconstitutional  and 
anti-Christian. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  SUNDAY-LAW  MOVEMENT  IN  THE  FOURTH  CENTURY, 
AND  ITS  PARALLEL  IN  THE  NINETEENTH. 

A  TITLE  for  this  chapter  equally  good  with  the  above 
would  be,  The  Making  of  the  Papacy  and  the  Perfect 
Likeness  to  It.     In  2  Thess.  2  :  1-4,  Paul  wrote  : — 

**  Now  we  beseech  you,  brethren,  by  the  coming  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  by  our  gathering  together  unto 
him,  that  ye  be  not  soon  shaken  in  mind,  or  be  troubled, 
neither  by  spirit,  nor  by  word,  nor  by  letter  as  from  ws, 
as  that  the  day  of  Christ  is  at  hand.  Let  no  man  deceive 
you  by  any  means  ;  for  that  day  shall  not  come,  except 
there  come  a  falling  away  first,  and  that  man  of  sin  be  re- 
vealed, the  son  of  perdition  ;  who  opposeth  and  exalteth 
himself  above  all  that  is  called  God,  or  that  is  worshiped  ; 
so  that  he  as  God  sitteth  in  the  temple  of  God,  showing 
himself  that  he  is  God  ;  for  the  mystery  of  iniquity  doth 
already  work." 

Speaking  to  the  elders  of  the  church  at  Ephesus,  Paul 
makes  known  what  is  the  secret,  we  might  say,  the  springs 
of  the  papacy.  Acts  20  :  28-30.  ''  Of  your  own  selves 
shall  men  arise,  speaking  perverse  things,  to  draw  away 
disciples  after  them."  He  was  here  speaking  to  the  eld- 
ers of  the  churches  —  the  bishops.  Whether  he  meant 
that  there  would  be  among  these  Ephesian  bishops  indi- 
viduals who  would  do  this,  or  that  the  bishopric  would  be 
perverted  from  its  true  office,  and  would  exalt  itself  to 
the  full  development  of  the  papacy,  it  matters  not  ;  for 
the  words  themselves  express  the  fact  as  it  was  enacted 
(78) 


FOURTH  AND  NINETEENTH  CENTURY  SUNDAY  LAWS.      79 

in  the  history  that  followed.  The  bishopric  of  Rome 
finally  developed  into  the  papacy,  which  is  the  embodi«- 
ment  of  the  "mystery  of  iniquity."  This  work,  as  he~ 
says,  began  by  the  bishops'  speaking  perverse  things,  to 
draw  away  disciples  after  them.  It  became  quite  general 
about  twenty  years  after  the .  death  of  John.  Says 
Mosheim  :  — 

*'  The  bishops  augmented  the  number  of  religious  rites 
in  the  Christian  worship,  by  way  of  accommodation  to 
the  infirmities  and  prejudices  both  of  Jews  and  heathen, 
in  order  to  facilitate  their  conversion  to  Christianity." 
"  For  this  purpose,  they  gave  the  name  of  mysteries  to 
the  institutions  of  the  gospel,  and  decorated  particularly 
the  holy  sacrament  with  that  solemn  title.  They  used  in 
that  sacred  institution,  as  also  in  that  of  baptism,  several 
of  the  terms  employed  in  the  heathen  mysteries,  and  pro- 
ceeded so  far  at  length  as  to  adopt  some  of  the  ceremo- 
nies of  w^hich  those  renowned  mysteries  consisted.  This 
imitation  began  in  the  Eastern  provinces  ;  but  after  the 
time  of  Hadrian  [emperor  A.  D.  117-138],.  who  first  intro- 
duced the  mysteries  among  the  Latins,  it  wa's  followed  by 
the  Christians  who  dwelt  in  the  western  part  of  the  em- 
pire. A  great  part,  therefore,  of  the  service  of  the  church 
in  this  century,  had  a  certain  air  of  the  heathen  mysteries, 
and  resembled  them  considerably  in  many  particulars."  — 
Church  History^  cent.  2,  part  2,  chap.  4,  par.  2,  5. 

Another  means  by  which  these  ambitious  bishops 
secured  disciples  to  themselves  in  great  numbers  from 
among  the  heathen,  was  the  adoption  of  the  day  of  the 
sun  as  a  festival  day. 

*'  The  oldest,  the  most  wide-spread,  and  the  most  endur- 
ing of  all  the  forms  of  idolatry  known  to  man,  [is]  the 
worship  of  the  sun." — T.  IV.  Chambers,  in  Old  Testament 
Stude7it,  January,  1886. 

And  says  Mosheim  :  — 

"  Before  the  coming  of  Christ,  all  the  Eastern  nations 
performed  divine  worship  with  their  faces  turned  to  that 


80  CIVIL   GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

part  of  the  heavens  where  the  sun  displays  his  rising 
beams.  This  custom  was  founded  upon  a  general  opinion 
that  God,  whose  essence  they  looked  upon  to  be  light,  and 
whom  they  considered  as  being  circumscribed  within  cer- 
tain limits,  dwelt  in  that  part  of  the  firmament  from  which 
he  sends  forth  the  sun,  the  bright  image  of  his  benignity 
and  glory.  The  Christian  converts,  indeed,  rejected  this 
gross  error  [of  supposing  that  God  dwelt  in  that  part  of 
the  firmament]  ;  but  they  retained  the  ancient  and  uni- 
versal custom  of  worshiping  toward  the  East,  which  sprang 
from  it.  Nor  is  this  custom  abolished  even  in  our  times, 
but  still  prevails  in  a  great  number  of  Christian  churches." 
Church  History,  cent.  2,  part  2,  chap.  4,  par.  7.    Eze.  8  :  16. 

This  was  first  adopted  in  connection  with  the  Sabbath 
of  the  Lord  ;  but  after  a  while  the  paganized  form  of  god- 
liness crowded  out  the  Sabbath  entirely,  and  those  were 
cursed  who  would  observe  it.  By  the  beginning  of  the 
fourth  century,  this  apostasy  had  gained  a  prominence  by 
which  it  could  make  itself  felt  in  the  political  workings  of 
the  Roman  empire.  The  ambitious  bishops  of  the  apostasy 
had  at  this  time  invented  a  theory  of  government,  which 
they  determined  to  have  recognized,  which  should  make 
the  civil  power  subordinate  to  the  ecclesiastical.  Says 
Neander :  — 

*'  There  had  in  fact  arisen  in  the  church  a  false  theo- 
cratical  theory,  originating  not  in  the  essence  of  the 
gospel,  but  in  the  confusion  of  the  religious  constitutions 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  which  .  .  .  brought 
along  with  it  an  unchristian  opposition  of  the  spiritual  to 
the  secular  power,  and  which  might  easily  result  in  the 
formation  of  a  sacerdotal  State,  subordinating  the  secular 
to  itself  in  a  false  and  outward  way."  —  Torreys  Neander, 
Boston,  1852,  p.  132. 

The  government  of  Israel  was  a  true  theocracy..  That 
was  really  a  government  of  God.  At  the  burning  bush, 
God  commissioned  Moses  to  lead  his  people  out  of  Egypt. 
By  signs   and   wonders  and  mighty  miracles  multiplied. 


FOURTH    AND    NINETEENTH    CENTURY    SUNDAY    LAWS.  81 

God  delivered  Israel  from  Egypt,  and  led  them  through 
the  wilderness,  and  finally  into  the  promised  land.  There 
he  ruled  them  by  judges  "  until  Samuel  the  prophet,"  to 
whom,  when  he  was  a  child,  God  spoke  and  by  whom  he 
made  known  his  will.  In  the  days  of  Samuel,  the  people 
asked  that  they  might  have  a  king.  This  was  allowed, 
and  God  chose  Saul,  and  Samuel  anointed  him  king  of 
Israel.  Saul  failed  to  do  the  will  of  God,  and  as  he 
rejected  the  word  of  the  Lord,  the  Lord  rejected  him  from 
being  king,  and  sent  Samuel  to  anoint  David  king  of 
Israel  ;  and  David's  throne  God  established  forevermore. 
When  Solomon  succeeded  to  the  kingdom  in  the  place  of 
David  his  father,  the  record  is:  ''Then  Solomon  sat  on 
the  throne  of  the  Lord  as  king  instead  of  David  his 
father."  1  Chron.  29  :  23.  David's  throne  was  the  throne 
of  the  Lord,  and  Solomon  sat  on  the  throne  of  the  Lord 
as  king  over  the  earthly  kingdom  of  God.  The  succession 
to  the  throne  descended  in  David's  line  to  Zedekiah,  who 
was  made  subject  to  the  king  of  Babylon,  and  who  entered 
into  a  solemn  covenant  before  God  that  he  would  loyally 
render  allegiance  to  the  king  of  Babylon.  But  Zedekiah 
broke  his  covenant  ;  and  then  God  said  to  him  :  — 

"  Thou  profane,  wicked  prince  of  Israel,  whose  day  is 
come,  when  iniquity  shall  have  an  end,  thus  saith  the  Lord 
God  :  Remove  the  diadem,  and  take  off  the  crown  ;  this 
shall  not  be  the  same  ;  exalt  him  that  is  low,  and  abase 
him  that  is  high.  I  will  overturn,  overturn,  overturn  it  ; 
and  it  shall  be  no  more,  until  he  come  whose  right  it  is  ; 
and  I  will  give  it  him."     Eze.  21  :  25-27  ;  17  : 1-21. 

The  kingdom  was  then  subject  to  Babylon.  When 
Babylon  fell,  and  Medo-Persia  succeeded,  it  was  over- 
turned the  first  time.  When  Medo-Persia  fell,  and  was 
succeeded  by  Grecia,  it  was  overturned  the  second  time. 
When  the  Greek  empire  gave  way  to  Rome,  it  was  over- 
turned the  third  time.     And  then  says  the  word,  "It  shall 

6 


82  CIVIL    GOVKRNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

be  no  more,  till  he  come  whpse  right  it  is  ;  and  I  will  give 
it  him."  Who  is  he  whose  right  it  is  .?  —  "Thou  .  .  .  shalt 
call  his  name  Jesus.  He  shall  be  great,  and  shall  be  called 
the  Son  of  the  Highest  ;  and  the  Lord  God  shall  give  unto 
him  the  throne  of  his  father  David  ;  and  he  shall  reien 
over  the  house  of  Jacob  forever,  and  of  his  kingdom  there 
shall  be  no  end."  Luke  1  :  31-33.  And  while  he  was  here 
as  "that  prophet,"  a  man  of  sorrows  and  acquainted  with 
grief,  the  night  in  which  he  was  betrayed  he  himself 
declared,  "  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world."  Thus  the 
throne  of  the  Lord  has  been  removed  from  this  world,  and 
will  "be  no  more,  until  he  come  whose  right  it  is,"  and 
then  it  will  be  given  him.  And  that  time  is  the  end  of 
this  world,  and  the  beginning  of  "the  world  to  come." 
Therefore  while  this  world  stands,  a  true  theocracy  can 
never  be  in  it  again.  Consequently,  from  the  death  of 
Christ  till  the  end  of  this  world,  every  theory  of  an  earthly 
theocracy  is  a  false  theory  ;  every  pretension  to  it  is  a 
false  pretension  ;  and  wherever  any  such  theory  is  pro- 
posed or  advocated,  whether  in  Rome  in  the  fourth  cent- 
ury, or  anywhere  else  in  any  other  century,  it  bears  in 
it  all  that  the  papacy  is  or  that  it  ever  pretended  to  be, 
—  it  puts  a  man  in  the  place  of  God. 

These  theocratical  bishops  made  themselves  and  their 
power  a  necessity  to  Constantine,  who,  in  order  to  make 
sure  of  their  support,  became  a  political  convert  to  the 
form  of  Christianity,  and  made  it  the  recognized  religion 
of  the  empire.     And  says  Neander  further  :  — 

*'"  This  theocratical  theory  was  already  the  prevailing 
one  in  the  time  of  Constantine  ;  and  .  .  .  the  bishops  vol- 
untarily made  themselves  dependent  on  him  by  their  dis- 
putes, and  by  their  determination  to  make  use  of  the  power 
of  the  State  for  the  furtherance  of  their  aims."  —  Idem. 

In  these  twoquotatio*i5  from  Neander  the  whole  history 
of  the  papacy  is  epitomized.     All  that  the  history  of  the 


FOURTH    AND    NINETEENTH    CENTURY    SUNDAY    LAWS.  83 

papacy  is,  is  only  the  working  out  of  this  theory.  For 
the  first  step  in  the  logic  of  a  man-made  theocracy,  is  a^ 
pope  ;  the  second  step  is  the  infallibility  of  that  pope  ; 
and  the  third  step  is  the  Inquisition,  to  make  his  infalli- 
bility effective,  as  we  will  prove  :  — 

First,  a  true  theocracy  being  a  government  immediately 
directed  by  God,  a  false  theocracy  is  a  government  directed 
by  a  man  in  the  place  of  God.  But  a  man  governing  in  the 
place  of  God  is  a  pope.  A  man  ruling  the  world  in  the 
place  of  God,  is  all  that  the  pope  has  ever  claimed  to  be. 

Second,  a  false  theocracy  being  a  professed  govern- 
ment of  God,  he  who  sits  at  the  head  of  it,  sits  there 
as  the  representative  of  God.  He  represents  the  di- 
vine authority  ;  and  when  he  speaks  or  acts  officially, 
his  speech  or  act  is  that  of  God.  But  to  make  a  man 
thus  the  representative  of  God,  is  only  to  clothe  human 
passions  with  divine  power  and  authority.  And  being 
human,  he  is  bound  always  to  act  unlike  God;  and  be- 
ing clothed  with  irresponsible  power,  he  will  sometimes 
act  like  the  Devil.  Consequently,  in  order  to  make  all  his 
actions  consistent  with  his  profession,  he  is  compelled  to 
cover  them  all  with  the  divine  attributes,  and  make  every- 
thing that  he  does  in  his  official  capacity  the  act  of  God.^ 
This  is  precisely  the  logic  and  the  profession  of  papal  infal- 
libility. It  is  not  claimed  that  all  the  pope  speaks  is 
infallible;  it  is  only  what  he  speaks  officially  —  what  he 
speaks  from  the  throne.  Under  this  theory,  he  sits  upon 
that  throne  as  the  head  of  the  government  of  God  in  this 
world.  He  sits  there  as  the  representative  of  God.  And 
when  he  speaks  officially,  when  he  speaks  from  the  throne, 
he  speaks  as  the  representative  of  God.  Therefore,  sitting 
in  the  place  of  God,  ruling  from  that  place  as  the  official 
representative  of  God,  that  which  he  speaks  from  the  throne 
is  the  word  of  God,  and  must  be  infallible.  This  is  the 
inevitable  logic  of  the  false  theocratical  theory.     And  if  it 


84  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

is  denied  that  the  theory  is  false,  there  is  logically  no 
escape  from  accepting  the  papal  system.  The  claims  of 
the  papacy  are  not  in  the  least  extravagant,  if  the  theory 
be  correct. 

Third,  God  is  the  moral  governor.  His  government  is 
a  moral  one,  whose  code  is  the  moral  law.  His  government 
and  his  law  have  to  do  with  the  thoughts,  the  intents,  and 
the  secrets  of  men's  hearts.  This  must  be  ever  the  gov- 
ernment of  God,  and  nothing  short  of  it  can  be  the  govern- 
ment of  God.  The  pope  then  being  the  head  of  what 
pretends  to  be  a  government  of  God,  and  ruling  there  in 
the  place  of  God,  his  government  must  rule  in  the  realm 
of  morals,  and  must  take  cognizance  of  the  counsels  of  the 
heart.  But  being  a  man,  how  could  he  discover  what 
were  the  thoughts  of  men's  hearts,  whether  they  were 
good  or  evil,  that  he  might  pronounce  judgment  upon 
them.'*  —  By  long  and  careful  experiment,  and  by  intense 
ingenuity,  means  were  discovered  by  which  the  most 
secret  thoughts  of  men's  hearts  might  be  wrung  from 
them,  and  that  was  by  the  Inquisition. 

But  the  Inquisition  was  only  the  inevitable  logic  of  the 
theocratical  theory  upon  which  the  papacy  was  founded. 
The  history  of  the  papacy  is  only  the  logic  of  the  theo- 
cratical theory  upon  which  the  papacy  was  founded  :  First, 
a  pope  ;  then  the  infallibility  of  that  pope  ;  then  the 
Inquisition,  to  make  his  infallible  authority  effective. 
And  that  is  the  logic  of  any  theocratical  theory  of  earthly 
government  since  Jesus  Christ  died. 

This  being  their  theory,  and  their  determination  being 
"  to  make  use  of  the  power  of  the  State  for  the  furtherance 
of  their  aims,"  the  question  arises.  What  means  did  they 
employ  to  secure  control  of  this  power  .-*  Answer. —  The 
means  of  Sunday  laws.  They  secured  from  Constantine 
the  following  Sunday  law  :  — 


FOURTH    AND    NINETEENTH    CENTURY    SUNDAY    LAWS.  85 


"THE    EMPEROR    CONSTANTINE    TO    HELPIDIUS. 

"On  tUe  venerable  day  of  the  sun,  let  the  magistrates 
and  people  living  in  towns,  rest,  and  let  all  work-shops  be 
closed.  Nevertheless,  in  the  country,  those  engaged  in 
the  cultivation  of  land  may  freely  and  lawfully  work,  be- 
cause it  often  happens  that  another  day  is  not  so  well 
fitted  for  sowing  grain  and  planting  vines  ;  lest  by  neglect 
of  the  best  time,  the  bounty  provided  by  Heaven  should 
be  lost.  Given  the  seventh  day  of  March,  Crispus  and 
Constantine  being  consuls,  both  for  the  second  time." 
[A.  D.  321.] 

This  was  not  the  very  first  Sunday  law  that  they  se- 
cured ;  the  first  one  has  not  survived.  But  although  the 
first  one  has  not  survived,  the  reason  for  it  has.  Sozomen 
says  that  it  was  "  that  the  day  might  be  devoted  with 
less  interruption  to  the  purposes  of  devotion."  And  this 
statement  of  Sozomen's  is  indorsed  by  Neander  ("  Church 
History,"  vol.  2,  p.  298).  This  reason  given  by  Sozomen 
reveals  the  secret  of  the  legislation  ;  it  shows  that  it  was 
in  behalf  of  the  church,  and  to  please  the  church. 

By  reading  the  above  edict,  it  is  seen  that  they 
started  out  quite  moderately.  They  did  not  stop  all 
work  ;  only  judges,  towns-people,  and  mechanics  were 
required  to  rest, 'while  people  in  the  country  might  freely 
and  lawfully  work.  The  emperor  paraded  his  soldiers  on 
Sunday,  and  required  them  to  repeat  in  concert  the  fol- 
lowing prayer : — 

"Thee  alone  we  acknowledge  as  the  true  God;  thee 
we  acknowledge  as  Ruler  ;  thee  we  invoke  for  help  ;  from 
thee  have  we  received  the  victory  ;  through  thee  have  we 
conquered  our  enemies  ;  to  thee  are  we  indebted  for  our 
present  blessings  ;  from  thee  also  we  hope  for  future 
favors  ;  to  thee  we  will  direct  our  prayer.  We  beseech 
thee,  that  thou  wouldst  preserve  our  Emperor  Constan- 
tine and  his  pious  sons  in  health  and  prosperity  through 
the  longest  life." 


86  CIVIL    GOVERNIMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

This  Sunday  law  of  A.  D.  321  continued  until  386^ 
when  — 

"Those  older  changes  effected  by  the  Emperor  Con- 
stantine  were  more  rigorously  enforced,  and,  in  general, 
civil  transactions  of  every  kind  on  Sunday  were  strictly 
forbidden.  Whoever  transgressed  was  to  be  considered, 
in  fact,  as  guilty  o{  ss-crWegQ.''  -^Neander,  Id.,  p.  300. 

Then  as  the  people  were  not  allowed  to  do  any  manner 
of  work,  they  would  play,  and  as  the  natural  consequence, 
the  circuses  and  the  theaters  throughout  the  empire  were 
crowded  every  Sunday.  But  the  object  of  the  law,  from 
the  first  one  that  was  issued,  was  that  the  day  might  be 
used  for  the  purposes  of  devotion,  and  the  people  might 
go  to  church.  Consequently,  that  this  object  might  be 
met,  there  was  another  step  to  take,  and  it  was  taken. 
At  a  church  convention  held  at  Carthage  in  401,  the 
bishops  passed  a  resolution  to  send  up  a  petition  to  the 
emperor,  praying  — 

**  That  the  public  shows  might  be  transferred  from  the 
Christian  Sunday,  and  from  feast  days,  to  some  other  days 
of  the  week."  —  Id. 

And  the  reason  given  in  support  of  the  petition  was  :  — 

*'  The  people  congregate  more  to  the  circus  than  to  the 
church.  And  it  is  not  fitting  that  Christians  should 
gather  at  the  spectacles,  since  the  exercises  there  are 
contrary  to  the  precepts  of  God  ;  and  if  they  were  not 
open,  the  Christians  would  attend  more  to  things  divine." 
—  Id.,  note  6. 

That  was  all  the  trouble.  Through  the  perverse  doc- 
trines, the  ambitious  schemes,  and  the  worldly  alliances  of 
the  bishops,  the  church  had  become  filled  with  a  mass  of 
people,  unconverted,  who  cared  vastly  more  for  worldly 
interests  and  pleasures  than  they  did  for  religion.  And 
as  the  government  was  now  a  government  of  God,  it  was 


FOURTH     AND    NINETEENTH    CENTURY    SUNDAY    LAWS.  87 

considered  proper  that  the  civil  power  should  be  used 
to  cause  all  to  show  respect  for  God,  whether  or  not 
they  had  any  respect  for  him.  But  as  long  as  they 
could  make  something  by  working  on  Sunday,  they 
would  work  rather  than  go  to  church.  A  law  was 
secured  forbidding  all  manner  of  Sunday  work.  Then 
they  would  crowd  the  circuses  and  the  theaters,  instead 
of  going  to  church.  But  this  was  not  what  the  bishops 
wanted  ;  this  was  not  that  for  which  all  work  had  been 
forbidden.  All  work  was  forbidden  in  order  that  the 
people  might  go  to  church  ;  but  instead  of  that,  they 
crowded  to  the  circus  and  the  theater,  and  the  audiences 
of  the  bishops  were  rather  slim.  This  was  not  at  all 
satisfying  to  their  pride  ;  therefore  the  next  step,  and  a 
logical  one,  too,  was,  as  the  petition  prayed,  to  have  the 
exhibitions  of  the  circuses  and  the  theaters  transferred  to 
some  other  days  of  the  week,  so  that  the  churches  and  the 
theaters  should  not  be  open  at  the  same  time.  For  if 
both  were  open,  the  Christians  (?),  as  well  as  others,  not 
being  able  to  go  to  both  places  at  once,  would  go  to  the 
circus  or  the  theater  instead  of  to  the  church.  Neander 
says : — 

"Owing  to  the  prevailing  passion  at  that  time,  espe- 
cially in  the  large  cities,  to  run  after  the  various  public 
shows,  it  so  happened  that  w^hen  these  spectacles  fell  on 
the  same  days  which  had  been  consecrated  by  the  church 
to  some  religious  festival,  they  proved  a  great  hindrance 
to  the  devotion  of  Christians,  though  chiefly,  it  must  be 
allowed,  to  those  whose  Christianity  was  the  least  an  affair 
of  the  life  and  of  the  heart."  —  Id. 

Assuredly !  An  open  circus  or  theater  will  always 
prove  a  great  hindrance  to  the  devotion  of  those  Christians 
whose  Christianity  is  the  least  an  affair  of  the  life  and  of 
the  heart.  In  other  words,  an  open  circus  or  theater  will 
always  be  a  great  hindrance  to  the  devotion  of  those  who 


88  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

have  not  religion  enough  to  keep  them  from  going  to 
it,  but  who  only  want  to  use  the  profession  of  relig- 
ion to  maintain  their  popularity,  and  to  promote  their 
selfish  interests.  On  the  other  hand,  to  the  devotion 
of  those  whose  Christianity  is  really  an  affair  of  the  life 
and  of  the  heart,  an  open  circus  or  theater  will  never  be  a 
particle  of  hindrance,  whether  open  at  church  time  or  all 
the  time.  But  those  people  had  not  enough  religion  or 
love  of  right,  to  do  what  they  thought  to  be  right  ;  there- 
fore they  wanted  the  State  to  take  away  from  them  all 
opportunity  to  do  wrong,  so  that  they  could  all  be  Chris- 
tians. Satan  himself  could  be  made  that  kind  of  Christian 
in  that  way  ;  but  he  would  be  Satan  still. 

Says  Neander  again  :  — 

"  Church  teachers  .  .  .  were  in  truth  often  forced  to 
complain  that  in  such  competitions  the  theater  was  vastly 
more  frequented  than  the  church."  —  Id. 

And  the  church  could  not  then  stand  competition  ;  she 
wanted  a  monopoly.     And  she  got  it. 

This  petition  of  the  Carthage  Convention  could  not  be 
granted  at  once,  but  in  425  the  desired  law  was  secured  ; 
and  to  this  also  there  was  attached  the  reason  that  was 
given  for  the  first  Sunday  law  that  ever  was  made  ; 
namely, — 

"  In  order  that  the  devotion  of  the  faithful  might  be  free 
from  all  disturbance." — Id.,  p.  301. 

It  must  constantly  be  borne  in  mind,  however,  that  the 
only  way  in  which  "  the  devotion  of  the  faithful  "  was  "  dis- 
turbed "  by  these  things,  was  that  when  the  circus  or  the 
theater  was  open  at  the  same  time  that  the  church  was 
open,  the  "faithful"  would  go  to  the  circus  or  the  theater 
instead  of  to  church,  and  tJiei^efore  their  "devotion"  was 
"disturbed."  And  of  course  the  only  way  in  which  the 
"devotion"  of  such  "faithful"  ones  could  be  freed  from  all 


FOURTH    AND    NINETEENTH    CENTURY    SUNDAY    LAWS.  89 

disturbance,  was  to  close  the  circuses  and  the  theaters  at 
church  time. 

In  the  logic  of  this  theocratical  scheme,  there  was  one 
more  step  to  be  taken.  It  came  about  in  this  way  :  First 
the  church  had  all  work  on  Sunday  forbidden,  in  order 
that  the  people  might  attend  to  things  divine.  But  the 
people  went  to  the  circus  and  the  theater  instead  of  to 
church.  Then  the  church  had  laws  enacted  closing  the 
circuses  and  the  theaters,  in  order  that  the  people  might 
attend  to  things  divine.  But  even  then  the  people  would 
not  be  devoted,  nor  attend  to  things  divine  ;  for  they  had 
no  real  religion.  The  next  step  to  be  taken,  therefore,  in 
the  logic  of  the  situation,  was  to  compel  them  to  be 
devoted  —  to  compel  them  to  attend  to  things  divine. 
This  was  the  next  step  logically  to  be  taken,  and  it  was 
taken.  The  theocratical  bishops  were  equal  to  the  occa- 
sion. They  were  ready  with  a  theory  that  exactly  met 
the  demands  of  the  case  ;  and  the  great  Catholic  Church 
Father  and  Catholic  saint,  Augustine,  was  the  father  of 
this  Catholic  saintly  theory.     He  wrote  :  — 

**  It  is  indeed  better  that  men  should  be  brought  to 
serve  God  by  instruction  than  by  fear  of  punishment,  or 
by  pain.  But  because  the  former  means  are  better,  the 
latter  must  not  therefore  be  neglected.  .  .  .  Many  must 
often  be  brought  back  to  their  Lord,  like  wicked  servants, 
by  the  rod  of  temporal  suffering,  before  they  attain  to  the 
highest  grade  of  religious  development." —  Schaff's  Church 
History,  vol.  2,  sec.  27. 

Of  this  theory  Neander  remarks  :  — 

'*  It  was  by  Augustine,  then,  that  a  theory  was  pro- 
posed and  founded,  which  .  .  .  contained  the  germ  of  that 
whole  system  of  spiritual  despotism  of  intolerance  and 
persecution,  which  ended  in  the  tribunals  of  the  Inquisi- 
tion."—  Church  History,  p.  217. 

The  history  of  the   Inquisition   is  only  the  history  of 


90  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND      RELIGION. 

the  carrying  out  of  this  infamous  theory  of  Augustine's. 
But  this  theory  is  only  the  logical  sequence  of  the  theory 
upon  which  the  whole  series  of  Sunday  laws  was  founded. 

Then  says  Neander  :  — 

*'  In  this  way  the  church  received  help  from  the  State 
for  the  furtherance  of  her  ends." 

This  statement  is  correct.  Constantine  did  many 
things  to  favor  the  bishops.  He  gave  them  money  and 
political  preference.  He  made  their  decisions  in  disputed 
cases  final,  as  the  decision  of  Jesus  Christ.  But  in  noth- 
ing that  he  did  for  them  did  he  give  them  power  over 
those  who  did  not  belong  to  the  church,  to  compel  them 
to  act  as  though  they  did,  except  in  that  one  thing  of  the 
Sunday  law.  Their  decisions,  which  he  decreed  to  be 
final,  were  binding  only  on  those  who  voluntarily  chose 
that  tribunal,  and  affected  none  others.  Before  this  time, 
if  any  who  had  repaired  to  the  tribunal  of  the  bishops 
were  dissatisfied  with  the  decision,  they  could  appeal  to 
the  civil  magistrate.  This  edict  cut  off  that  source  of 
appeal,  yet  affected  none  but  those  who  voluntarily  chose 
tile  arbitration  of  the  bishops.  But  in  the  Sunday  law, 
power  was  given  to  the  church  to  compel  those  who  did 
not  belong  to  the  church,  and  who  were  not  subject  to 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  church,  to  obey  the  commands  of 
the  church.  In  the  Sunday  law  there  was  given  to  the 
church  control  of  the  civil  power,  that  by  it  she  could 
compel  those  who  did  not  belong  to  the  church  to  act 
as  if  they  did.  The  history  of  Constantine's  time  may 
be  searched  through  and  through,  and  it  will  be  found 
that  in  nothing  did  he  give  to  the  church  any  such  power, 
except  in  this  one  thing  —  the  Sunday  law.  Neander's 
statement  is  literally  correct,  that  it  was  "in  this  way  the 
church  received  help  from  the  State  for  the  furtherance  of 
her  ends." 


FOURTH    AND    NINETEENTH    CENTURY    SUNDAY    LAWS.  91 

Here  let  us  bring  together  more  closely  the  direct 
bearing  of  these  statements  from  Neander.  First,  he 
says  of  the  carrying  into  effect  of  the  theocratical  theory 
of  those  bishops,  that  they  made  themselves  dependent 
upon  Constantine  by  their  disputes,  and  "by  their  de- 
termination to  use  the  power  of  the  State  for  the  further- 
ance of  their  aims."  Then  he  mentions  the  first  and  sec- 
ond Sunday  laws  of  Constantine,  the  Sunday  law  of  386, 
the  Carthage  Convention,  resolution,  and  petition  of  401, 
and  the  law  of  425  in  response  to  this  petition  ;  and  then, 
without  a  break,  and  with  direct  reference  to  these  Sun- 
day laws,  he  says  :  ^'  In  this  ivay  the  church  received  help 
from  the  State  for  the  furtherance  of  her  ends."  She 
started  out  with  the  determination  to  do  it ;  she  did  it  ; 
and  ''in  this  way''  she  did  it.  And  when  she  had  secured 
control  of  the  power  of  the  State,  she  used  it  for  the  fur- 
therance of  her  own  aims,  and  that  in  her  own  despotic 
way,  as  announced  in  the  Inquisitorial  theory  of  Augus- 
tine. The  first  step  logically  and  inevitably  led  to  the 
last  ;  and  the  theocratical  leaders  in  the  movement  had 
the  cruel  courage  to  follow  the  first  step  unto  the  last,  as 
framed  in  the  words  of  Augustine,  and  illustrated  in  the 
history  of  the  Inquisition. 

LOOK   ON    THAT   PICTURE,    THEN    ON    THIS. 

In  a  preceding  chapter,  we  have  given  verbatim  the 
Blair  National  Sunday  bill,  and  have  discussed  some  of  its 
provisions.  As  we  have  seen,  its  object  is  clearly  declared 
to  be,  to  secure  to  the  whole  people  rest  on  the  Lord's 
day,  and  **  to  promote  its  observance  as  a  day  of  worship  ; " 
and  everything  in  the  bill  is  to  be  construed,  as  far  as 
possible,  to  secure  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath  '*  as  a 
day  of  worship."  This  is  the  purpose  of  the  bill:  what  is 
the  purpose  of  those  who  are  working  so  strenuously  to 
have  the  bill  become  a  law  t  *  . 


92  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

On  Nov.  8,  1887,  a  convention  was  held  in  Elgin, 
111.,  which  Avas  "  called  by  the  members  of  the  Elgin 
Association  of  Congregational  Ministers  and  Churches,  to 
consider  the  prevalent  desecration  of  the  Sabbath,  and 
its  remedy."  In  that  convention,  Dr.  W.  W.  Everts,  of 
Chicago,  said  :  — 

"  This  day  is  set  apart  for  divine  worship  and  prepara- 
tion for  another  life.     It  is  the  test  of  all  religion." 

This  clearly  shows  that  the  object  of  those  who  are 
working  for  Sunday  laws  is  wholly  religious,  and  that 
•  they  are  endeavoring  to  secure  the  power  of  the  State  to 
further  their  own  aims.  The  Sabbath  is  indeed  set  apart 
for  divine  worship  and  preparation  fo;-  another  life  ;  but 
the  observances  of  divine  worship,  and  the  preparation  of 
men  for  another  life,  are  committed  by  Jesus  Christ  to  the 
church.  The  State  cannot  of  right  have  anything  to  do 
with  religious  observances,  and  it  is  impossible  for  the 
civil  power  to  prepare  men  for  another  life.  Therefore, 
as  this  work  belongs  wholly  to  the  church,  and  as  the 
church  wants  to  use  the  civil  power  for  this  purpose,  it 
follows  that  these  church  leaders  of  our  day,  like  those  of 
the  fourth  century,  are  determined  to  make  use  of  the 
power  of  the  State  to  further  their  own  aims. 

*'  It  is  the  test  of  all  religion,"  says  Dr.  Everts.  Then 
what  can  ever  be  the  enforcement  of  it  but  the  enforce- 
ment of  a  religious  test  ?  That  is  precisely  what  it  is. 
Again,  the  same  speaker  said  :  — 

*'  The  people  who  do  not  keep  the  Sabbath,  have  no 
religion." 

Very  good.  The  antithesis  of  this  is  also  true  :  the 
people  who  do  keep  the  Sabbath  have  religion.  There- 
fore this  demand  for  laws  to  compel  men  to  keep  the 
Sabbath,  is  only  a  dernand  for  laws  to  compel  people  to 
have  religion. 


FOURTH    AND    NINETEENTH    CENTURY    SUNDAY    LAWS.  93 

Again  Dr.  Everts  said  :  — 

"  He  who  does  not  keep  the  Sabbath,  does  not  worship 
God  ;  and  he  who  does  not  worship  God,  is  lost." 

Admitted.  Therefore  this  demand  for  laws  to  compel 
men  to  keep  the  Sabbath,  is  only  a  demand  for  laws  to 
compel  them  to  worship  God. 

Nor  is  Mr.  Everts  alone  in  this.  Joseph  Cook,  in  the 
Boston  Monday  lectureship  of  1887,  said  :  — 

"  The  experience  of  centuries  shows  that  you  will  in 
vain  endeavor  to  preserve  Sunday  as  a  day  of  rest,  unless 
you  preserve  it  as  a  day  of  worships 

And  Dr.  Wilbur  F.  Crafts,  in  the  Washington,  D.  C, 
national  Sunday  convention,  Dec.  11-13,  1888,  said  :  — 

'*  If  you  take  religion  out  of  the  day,  you  take  the  rest 
out  of  it." 

These  statements  from  the  representative  men  of  this 
movement,  are  sufficient  to  show  that  the  movement  is 
wholly  religious.  But,  we  repeat,  religious  observances 
and  the  promotion  of  religion,  God  has  committed  to  the 
church  only.  Therefore  this  Sunday-law  movement,  as 
that  in  the  fourth  century,  is  only  an  effort  on  the  part  of 
the  church  to  make  use  of  the  power  of  the  State  for  the 
furtherance  of  her  aims.  More  than  this,  to  the  church, 
and  to  her  alone,  God  has  committed  the  power  by  which 
alone  religion  can  be  promoted  ;  that  is,  the  power  of  the 
,Holy  Spirit.  So  long  as  she  has  this  power,  she  needs  no 
other,  and  she  will  ask  for  no  other.  Therefore  by  this  so 
widely  prevalent  movement  on  the  part  of  the  church  to 
secure  the  power  of  the  State  by  which  to  promote  religion 
and  religious  observances,  it  is  proved  that  the  church  is 
losing  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  object  of  this  movement  is  not  only  identical  with 
that  of  the  fourth  century,  but  the  arguments  and  methods 


1)4  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

used  to  attain  that  object  are  identical  with  those  of  the 
fourth  century.  There  it  was  pleaded  that  without  a 
Sunday  law  the  people  would  not  sufficiently  attend  to 
things  divine. 

At  the  Elgin  convention,  the  following  resolutions 
were  passed  :  — 

''Resolved,  That  we  recognize  the  Sabbath  as  an  insti- 
tution of  God,  revealed  in  nature  and  the  Bible,  and  of 
perpetual  obligation  on  all  men  ;  and  also  as  a  civil  and 
American  institution,  bound  up  in  vital  and  historical 
connection  with  the  origin  and  foundation  of  our  Govern- 
ment, the  growth  of  our  polity,  and  necessary  to  be 
maintained  in  order  for  the  preservation  and  integrity  of 
our  national  system,  and  therefore  as  having  a  sacred 
claim  on  all  patriotic  American  citizens.**' 

Let  us  read  the  commandment  according  to  this  reso- 
lution :  Remember  the  Sabbath  day,  to  keep  it  civilly. 
The  seventh  day  is  the  American  Sabbath,  and  you  shall 
keep  it  civilly,  because  in  six  days  the  Americans  made 
the  heavens  and  the  earth,  and  on  the  seventh  day  they 
rested.  Wherefore  they  blessed  the  Sabbath  day,  and 
civilized  it. 

"  The  seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  thy  God'' 
is  what  the  commandment  says,  and  that  is  whose  it  is. 
The  word  Sabbath  means  rest.  But  the  rest  belongs  to 
the  one  who  rested.  Who  rested.!* — God.  From  what .? 
—  From  the  work  of  creation.  "  Remember  the  Sabbath 
day,  to  keep  it  holy,"  says  the  commandment.  It  is 
^religious  entirely.  There  is  nothing  either  American  or 
civil  about  it.  It  is  the  Lord's,  and  it  is  holy.  If  it  is  not 
kept  holy,  it  is  not  kept  at  all.  And  being  the  Sabbath 
of  the  Lord  —  the  Lord's  day  —  it  is  to  be  rendered  to  the 
Lord,  and  not  to  Caesar.  With  its  observance  or  non- 
observance,'  civil  government  can  never  of  right  have 
anything  to  do.     The  second  resolution  was  this  :  — 


FOURTH    AND    NINETEENTH    CENTURY    SUNDAY    LAWS.  95 

'^Resolved,  That  we  look  with  shame  and  sorrow  on  the 
non-observance  of  the  Sabbath  by  many  Christian  people, 
in  that  the  custom  prevails  with  them  of  purchasings 
Sabbath  newspapers,  engaging  in  and  patronizing  Sabbath 
business  and  travel,  and  in  many  instances  giving  them- 
selves to  pleasure  and  self-indulgence,  setting  aside  by 
neglect  and  indifference  the  great  duties  and  privileges 
which  God's  day  brings  them." 

That  is  a  fact.  They  ought  to  be  ashamed  of  it.  But 
what  do  they  do  to  rectify  the  matter }  Do  they  resolve 
to  preach  the  gospel  better }  to  be  more  faithful  themselves 
in  bringing  up  the  consciences  of  the  people,  by  showing 
them  their  duty  in  regard  to  these  things.?  — Oh,  no. 
They  resolve  to  do  this  :  — 

"  Resolved,  That  we  give  our  votes  and  support  to 
those  candidates  or  political  officers  who  will  pledge 
themselves  to  vote  for  the  enactment  and  enforcing  of 
statutes  in  favor  of  the  civil  Sabbath." 

Yes,  they  are  ashamed  and  sorry  that  Christians  will 
not  act  like  Christians,  morally  and  religiously  ;  therefore 
they  will  compel  them  to  act  both  morally  and  religiously, 
by  enforcing  upon  them  a  civil  Sabbath  !  But  if  men  will 
not  obey  the  commandment  of  God,  without  being  com- 
pelled to  do  it  by  the  civil  law,  then  when  they  obey  the 
civil  law,  are  they  obeying  God  }  —  They  are  not.  Do  not 
these  people,  then,  in  that,  put  the  civil  law  in  the  place 
of  the  law  of  God,  and  the  civil  government  in  the  place 
of  God.?  —  They  assuredly  do.  And  that  is  always  the 
inevitable  effect  of  such  attempts  as  this.  It  makes  utter 
confusion  of  all  civil  and  religious  relations,  and  only  adds 
hypocrisy  to  guilt,  and  increases  unto  more  ungodliness. 
There  is  another  important  consideration  just  here.  They 
never  intend  to  secure  nor  to  enforce  a  civil  Sunday,  but 
a  religious  one  wholly  ;  for  in  all  the  discussions  of  that 
whole  convention,  there  was  not  a  word  said  about  a  civil 


96  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

Sabbath,  except  in  two  of  these  resolutions.  In  the  dis- 
cussions of  the  resolutions  themselves,  everything  was 
upon  a  religious  basis.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  a  civil 
Sunday  ;  and  no  man  can  argue  three  minutes  in  favor  of 
a  civil  Sunday,  without  making  it  only  what  it  is,  religious 
wholly. 

In  a  Sunday-law  mass-meeting  held  in  Hamilton  Hall, 
Oakland,  Cal.,  in  January,  1887,  Rev.  Dr.  Briggs,  of  Napa, 
CaL,  said  to  the  State  :  — 

''You  relegate  moral  instruction  to  the  church,  and 
then  let  all  go  as  they  please  on  Sunday,  so  that  we 
cannot  get  at  them." 

And  so  they  want  the  State  to  corral  all  the  people  on 
Sunday,  that  the  preachers  may  get  at  them.  That  is 
what  they  wanted  in  the  fourth  century.  They  got  it 
at  last. 

They  demand  that  the  Sunday  paper  shall  be  abol- 
ished, because,  as  stated  by  Dr.  Everts  in  the  Elgin 
convention  :  — 

"  The  laboring  class  are  apt  to  rise  late  on  Sunday 
morning,  read  the  Sunday  papers,  and  allow  the  hour  of 
worship  to  go  by  unheeded." 

And  Dr.  Herrick  Johnson,  in  the  Illinois  Sunday  con- 
vention, in  Farwell  Hall,  Chicago,  Nov.  20,  21,  1888,  said 
of  the  Sunday  newspaper  :  — 

"  The  saloon  cannot  come  into  our  homes;  the  house 
of  ill-fame  cannot  come  into  our  parlors  ;  but  the  Sunday 
paper  is  everywhere.  It  creeps  into  our  homes  on  Sun- 
day. It  can  so  easily  be  put  into  the  pocket  and  taken 
into  the  parlor  and  read." 

Then  he  named  the  matter  with  which  he  said  the 
Sunday  papers  are  filled,  —  "crime,  scandal,  gossip,  news, 
and  politics,"  —  and  said  :  — 


FOURTH    AND    NINETEENTH    CENTURY    SUNDAY    LAWS.  97 

''  What  a  melange!  what  a  dish  to  set  down  before  a 
man  before  breakfast  and  after  breakfast,  to  prepare  him 
for  hearing  the  word  of  God  !  It  makes  it  twice  as  hard 
to  reach  those  who  go  to  the  sanctuary,  and  it  keeps  mav' 
away  from,  the  house  of  worship  altogether.  They  read 
the  paper  ;  the  time  comes  to  go  to  church  ;  but  ft  is 
said,  '  Here  is  something  interesting  ;  I  will  read  it,  and 
not  go  to  church  to-day.'" 

The  Sunday  railway  train  must  also  be  stopped,  and 
for  the  same  reason.  In  the  speech  above  referred  to. 
Dr.  Johnson,  speaking  of  the  Inter  Ocean  Sunday  news- 
train,  described  how  the  people  would  flock  to  the  station 
to  see  the  train,  and  said  :  — 

"  In  the  Sabbath  lull  from  politics,  business,  etc.,  the 
people  would  go  to  church 'were  it  not  for  the  attraction 
of  the  Inter  Ocean  special  train." 

In  the  Elgin  convention.  Dr.  Everts  said  :  — 

"  The  Sunday  train  is  another  great  evil.  They  cannot 
afford  to  run  a  train  unless  they  get  a  great  many  passen- 
gers, and  so  break  up  a  great  many  congregations.  The 
Sunday  railroad  trains  are  hurrying  their  passengers  fast 
on  to  perdition.  What  an  outrage  that  the  railroad,  that 
great  civilizer,  should  destroy  the  Christian  Sabbath  !  " 

And  ''Rev."  M.  A.  Gault,  of  the  National  Reform 
Association,  in  the  Christian  Statesman,  Sept.  25,  1884, 
said  :  — 

"This  railroad  [the  Chicago  and  Rock  Island]  has 
been  running  excursion  trains  from  Des  Moines  to  Colfax 
Springs  on  the  Sabbath  for  some  time,  and  the  ministers 
complain  that  their  members  go  on  these  excursions." 

It  is  not  necessary  to  add  any  more  statements  ;  they 
are  all  in  the  same  line.  They  all  plainly  show  that  the 
secret  and  real  object  of  the  whole  Sunday-law  movement 
is  to  get  the  people  to  go  to  church.  The  Sunday  train 
must  be    stopped,    because    church-members    ride  on  it, 

7 


98  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

and  don't  go  to  church  enough.  The  Sunday  paper  must 
be  abolished,  because  the  people  read  it  instead  of  going 
to  church,  and  because  those  who  read  it  and  go  to 
church  too,  are  not  so  well  prepared  to  receive  the 
preaching. 

It  was  precisely  the  same  way  in  the  fourth  century 
concerning  the  Sunday  circus  and  theater.  The  people, 
even  the  church-members,  would  go  to  these  instead  of 
to  church  ;  and  even  if  any  went  to  both,  it  must  be  con- 
fessed that  the  Roman  circus  or  theater  was  not  a  very 
excellent  dish  —  **What  a  melange!''  —  to  set  down  be- 
fore a  man  to  prepare  him  for  hearing  the  word  of  God. 
The  Sunday  circus  and  theater  could  not  afford  to  keep 
open  unless  they  could  get  a  great  many  spectators,  and 
so  break  up  a  great  many  congregations.  And  as  they 
hurried  the  spectators  fast  on  to  perdition,  they  had  to  be 
shut  on  Sunday,  so  as  to  keep  ''  a  great  many  congrega- 
tions "  out  of  perdition.  It  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  see 
how  a  Sunday  circus  in  the  fourth  century  could  hurry 
to  perdition  any  one  who  did  not  attend  it  ;  or  how  a 
Sunday  train  in  the  nineteenth  century  can  hurry  to 
perdition  any  one  who  does  not  ride  on  it.  And  if  any 
are  hurried  to  perdition  by  this  means,  who  is  to  blame  : 
the  Sunday  train,  or  the  ones  who  ride  on  it }  And  Dr. 
Johnson's  complaint  of  the  Sunday  papers'  being  worse 
than  the  saloon  or  the  house  of  ill-fame,  because  these 
cannot  get  into  the  home,  while  the  paper  can  be  put  into 
the  pocket  and  taken  into  the  home,  is  of  the  same  flimsy 
piece.  The  saloon  can  be  taken  into  the  home,  if  a  person 
will  but  put  it  into  his  pocket,  and  the  house  of  ill-fame 
can  be  taken  into  the  parlor,  if  a  man  will  put  it  under 
his  cloak  ;  and  if  the  Sunday  paper  gets  there  by  being 
put  into  the  pocket,  where  lies  the  blame :  upon  the 
paper,  or  upon  the  one  who  puts  it  into  his  pocket } 
Right  here  lies  the  secret  of  the  whole  evil  now,  as  it  did 


FOURTH    AND    NINETEENTH    CENTURY    SUNDAY    LAWS.  99 

in  the  fourth  century  :  they  blame  everybody  and  every- 
thing else,  even  to  inanimate  things,  for  the  irreligion, 
the  infidelity,  and  the  sin  that  lie  in  their  own  hearts. 

Nor  are  they  going  to  be  content  with  a  little.  Dr. 
Crafts,  speaking  before  the  United  States  Senate  com- 
mittee in  April,  1888,  in  favor  of  the  National  Sunday  law, 
said  : — 

'*  The  law  allows  the  local  postmaster,  if  he  chooses 
(and  some  of  them  do  choose),  to  open  the  mails  at  the 
very  hour  of  church,  and  so  make  the  post-office  the  com- 
petitor of  the  churches." 

This  same  trouble  was  experienced  in  the  fourth  cent- 
ury also,  between  the  circus  or  the  theater,  and  the 
church.  The  church  could  not  stand  competition  ;  she 
would  be  content  with  nothing  less  than  a  monopoly,  and 
she  got  it,  precisely  as  these  church  managers  are  trying 
to  get  it.  More  than  this,  they  want  now,  as  they  did 
then,  the  government  to  secure  them  in  the  enjoyment  of 
a  perpetual  monopoly.  At  another  point  in  the  same 
speech,  Mr.  Crafts  referred  to  the  proposed  law  as  one  for 
'' protecting  the  church  services  from  post-office  competi- 
tion." And  in  explaining  how  this  could  be  done,  he 
said  :  — 

'*  A  law  forbidding  the  opening  between  ten  and  twelve, 
would  accomplish  this,  and  would  be  better  than  nothing  ; 

but  we  zvant  more'' 

How  much  more.-*     He  continues:  — 

'*A  law  forbidding  any  handling  of  Sunday  mail  at 
such  hours  as  would  interfere  with  church  attendance  on 
the  part  of  the  employees,  would  be  better  than  nothing  ; 
but  we  want  tnore  than  this'' 

How  much  more  .-*     He  continues  :  — 

"Local  option  in  deciding  whether  a  local  post-office 
shall   be  open  at  all   on  Sunday,  we  should  welcome  as 


100  CIVIL   GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

better  than  nothing  ;  .  .  .  but  we  desire  more  than  this''' 

HoMT  much  more  ?     Still  he  continues  :  — 

'  "A  law  forbidding  all  carrier  delivery  of  mail  on  Sun- 
day, w^ould  be  better  than  nothing  ;  but  we  want  more  than 
that" 

Then  he  says  :  — 

**  What  we  ask  is  a  law  instructing  the  postmaster- 
general  to  make  no  further  contracts  which  shall  include 
the  carrying  of  mails  on  the  Sabbath,  and  to  provide  that 
hereafter  no  mail  matter  shall  be  collected  or  distributed 
on  that  day." 

But  when  they  shall  have  secured  the  help  of  the  Gov- 
ernment in  carrying  their  monopolizing  ambition  thus  far, 
will  they  be  content?  —  Not  at  all.  Nothing  short  of  a 
complete  and  perpetual  monopoly  will  satisfy  them.  This 
is  proved  by  Dr.  Mc  AUister's  words  at  Lakeside,  Ohio, 
July,  1887,  as  follows  :  — 

''Let  a  man  be  what  he  may, — Jew,  seventh-day  ob- 
server of  some  other  denomination,  or  those  who  do  not 
believe  in  the  Christian  Sabbath,  —  let  the  law  apply  to 
every  one,  that  there  shall  be  no  public  desecration  of  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  the  Christian  Sabbath,  the  day  of 
rest  for  the  nation.  They  may  hold  any  other  day  of  the 
week  as  sacred,  and  observe  it ;  but  that  day  which  is  the 
one  day  in  seven  for  the  nation  at  large,  let  that  not  be 
publicly  desecrated  by  any  one,  by  officer  in  the  Govern- 
ment, or  by  private  citizen,  high  or  low,  rich  or  poor." 

There  is  much  being  said  of  the  grasping,  grinding 
greed  of  monopolies  of  many  kinds  ;  but  of  all  monopo- 
lies on  earth,  the  most  grinding,  the  most  greedy,  the 
most  oppressive,  the  most  conscienceless,  is  a  religious 
monopoly. 

When  they  shall  have  stopped  all  Sunday  work,  and 
all  Sunday  papers,  and  all  Sunday  trains,  in  order  that 
the  people  may  go  to  church  and  attend  to  things  divine, 
suppose  that  then  the  people  fail  to  go  to  church  or  attend 


FOURTH    AND    NINETEENTH     CENTURY    SUNDAY    LAWS.  101 

to  things  divine  :  will  the  religip-political  managers  stop 
there?  Having  done  all  this  tHa]:  ite  P^^'ople  m'ay  be  de- 
voted, will  they  suffer  their  ^ood  intprition^tp  >,e  .frus- 
trated, or  their  good  ofifices^to/fe\di5t)i^.(i(H  ^/'^^^iil^  not 
these  now  take  the  next  logical  step,  the  step  that  was 
taken  in  the  fourth  century,  and  compel  men  to  attend 
to  things  divine  ?  If  not,  why  not  ?  Having  taken  all 
the  steps  but  this,  will  they  not  take  this?  —  They  will. 
Human  nature  is  the  same  now  as  it  was  in  the  fourth 
century.  Politics  is  the  same  now  as  it  was  then.  And 
as  for  religious  bigotry,  it  knows  no  centuries  ;  it  knows 
no  such  thing  as  progress  or  enlightenment ;  it  is  ever 
the  same.  And  in  its  control  of  civil  power,  the  cruel 
results  are  also  ever  the  same. 

This  probability  is  made  yet  more  certain  by  the  fact 
that  the  theory  which  is  the  basis  of  all  this  legislation, 
is  also  identical  with  that  of  the  religio-political  element 
in  the  fourth  century.  A  theocratical  theory  of  govern- 
ment was  the  basis  of  the  religious  legislation  in  the 
fourth  century  ;  it  is  the  same  now.  The  Woman's 
Christian  Temperance  Union  is  the  most  active  and  in- 
fluential body  in  the  Sunday-law  movement  now.  The 
great  majority  of  the  petitions  for  the  Blair  Sunday  law, 
except  that  of  their  seven-million-two-hundred-thousand- 
times-multiplied  Cardinal,  have  been  secured  by  the  W.  C. 
T.  U.  ;  and  for  convenience'  sake  we  shall  here  repeat 
some  quotations  already  given,  showing  the  theory  and 
purpose  which  that  organization  has  in  view  : — 

"A  true  theocracy  is  yet  to  come,  and  the  enthrone- 
ment of  Christ  in  law  and  law-makers  ;  hence  I  pray  de- 
voutly as  a  Christian  patriot,  for  the  ballot  in  the  hands 
of  women,  and  rejoice  that  the  National  Woman's  Chris- 
tian Temperance  Union  has  so  long  championed  this 
cause." 

''The  Woman's  Christian  Temperance  Union,  local. 
State,    national,    and    world-wide,  has    one   vital,  organic 


102  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

thought,  one  all-absorbing  purpose,  one  undying  enthu- 
siasm, and  that  is  'that  Christ  shall  be  this  world's  kiiig; 
—  yea,  verily,  TH'lS  WORED's  KING  in  its  realm  of  cause 
and  eftect,  ~ ;k;ing  af>its  courts,  its  camps,  its  commerce, — 
king  of  it's' colleges  and  cloisters,  —  king  of  its  customs 
and  its  constitutions.  .  .  .  The  kingdom  of  Christ  must 
enter  the  realm  of  law  through  the  gate-way  of  politics. 
.  .  .  We  pray  Heaven  to  give  them  [the  old  parties]  no 
rest  .  .  .  until  they  shall  .  .  .  swear  an  oath  of  allegiance 
to  Christ  in  politics,  and  march  in  one  great  army  up  to 
the  polls  to  worship  God."  —  President's  Annual  Address 
in  Convention^  Nashville,  1887. 

We  have  before  shown  that  the  W.  C.  T.  U.  is  allied 
with  the  National  Reform  Association,  and  that  their 
object  is  declared  to  be,  upon  a  theocratical  theory,  to 
turn  this  republic  into  a  kingdom  of  God.  In  the  Cincin- 
nati National  Reform  convention,  1872,  Prof.  J.  R.  W. 
Sloane,  D.  D.,  said  :  — 

''Every  government  by  equitable  laws,  is  a  govern- 
ment of  God.  A  republic  thus  governed  is  of  Him, 
through  the  people,  and  is  as  truly  and  really  a  theocracy 
as  the  commonwealth  of  Israel." 

By  the  expression  "  government  by  equitable  laws," 
Mr.  Sloane  and  the  National  Reformers  generally  mean 
such  a  government  as  the  National  Reformers  seek  to 
have  established.  According  to  their  theory,  our  Gov- 
ernment as  it  is,  is  not  a  government  by  equitable  laws, 
but  is  entirely  founded  upon  infidel  and  atheistic  ideas. 
Consequently  they  want  the  Constitution  religiously 
amended,  and  framed  upon  their  ideas  ;  then  it  will  be  a 
government  by  equitable  laws,  and  will  be  as  truly  and 
really  a  theocracy  as  was  the  commonwealth  of  Israel. 

The  Sunday-law  Association  also  holds  much  the  same 
theory.  In  the  Elgin  Sunday-law  convention.  Dr.  Man- 
deville,  of  Chicago,  said  :  — 

"The  merchants  of  Tyre  insisted  upon  selling  goods 
near  the  temple  on  the  Sabbath,  and  Nehemiah  compelled 


FOURTH    AND    NINETEENTH     CENTURY    SUNDAY    LAWS.  103 

the  officers  of  the  law  to  do  their  duty,  and  stop  it.     So 
we  can  compel  the  officers  of  the  law  to  do  their  duty." 

Now  Nehemiah  was  ruling  there  in  a  true  theocracy, 
a  government  of  God  ;  the  law  of  God  was  the  law  of  the 
land,  and  God's  will  was  made  known  by  the  written 
word,  and  by  the  prophets.  Therefore  if  Dr.  Mandeville's 
argument  is  of  any  force  at  all,  it  is  so  only  upon  the 
claim  of  the  establishment  of  a  theocracy.  With  this 
idea  the  view  of  Dr.  Crafts  agrees  precisely,  and  Dr.  Crafts 
is  general  secretary  for  the  National  Sunday-law  Union. 
He  claims,  as  expressed  in  his  own  words,  that  — 

"The  preachers  are  the  successors  of  the  prophets."  — 
Christian  Statesman,  Jufy  5,  1888. 

Now  put  these  things  together.  The  government  of 
Israel  was  a  theocracy  ;  the  will  of  God  was  made  known 
to  the  ruler  by  prophets  ;  the  ruler  compelled  the  officers 
of  the  law  to  prevent  the  ungodly  from  selling  goods  on 
the  Sabbath.  This  government  is  to  be  made  a  theoc- 
racy ;  the  preachers  are  the  successors  of  the  prophets  ; 
and  they  are  to  compel  the  officers  of  the  law  to  prevent 
all  selling  of  goods  and  all  manner  of  work  on  Sunday. 
This  shows  conclusively  that  these  preachers  intend  to 
take  the  supremacy  into  their  hands,  officially  declare  the 
will  of  God,  and  compel  all  men  to  conform  to  it.  And 
this  deduction  is  made  certain  by  the  words  of  Prof. 
Blanchard,  in  the  Elgin  convention  :  — 

*'  In  this  work  we  are  undertaking  for  the  Sabbath,  we 
are  the  representatives  of  God." 

And  the  chief  of  these  representatives  of  God,  will  be 
but  a  pope  again  ;  because  when  preachers  control  the 
civil  power  as  the  representatives  of  God,  a  pope  is 
inevitable. 

These  quotations  prove,  to  a  demonstration,  that  the 
whole  theory  upon  which  this  religio-political  movement 
is   based,    is   identical   with   that   of  the  fourth  century, 


104  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

which  established  the  papacy.  They  show  also  that  the 
means  employed  —  Sunday  laws  —  by  which  to  gain  con- 
trol of  the  civil  power  to  make  the  wicked  theory  effect- 
ive, are  identical  with  the  means  which  were  employed  in 
the  fourth  century  for  the  same  purpose.  The  next 
question  is,  Will  they  carry  the  theory  into  effect  as  they 
did  in  the  fourth  century  and  onward  ?  In  other  words, 
when  they  get  the  power  to  oppress,  will  they  use  the 
power  ?  A  sufficient  answer  to  this  would  seem  to  be  the 
simple  inquiry.  If  they  do  not  intend  to  use  the  power, 
then  why  are  they  making  such  strenuous  efforts  to  get 
it  ?  But  we  are  not  left  to  this  inquiry  for  an  answer  to 
the  question  ;  we  have  some  of  their  own  words.  We 
may  first  refer  the  reader  again  to  the  quotations  from 
the  National  Reformers  on  pages  51-56.  And  these 
quotations  apply  with  special  force  to  the  question  of 
Sunday  observance  ;  for  they  declare  that  — 

''  The  observance  of  the  Sabbath  [Sunday]  is  an  ac- 
knowledgment of  the  sovereign  rights  of  God  over  us." 

Then  when  they  secure  the  law,  it  will  be  a  national 
acknowledgment  of  the  sovereign  rights  of  God  ;  and  for 
any  one  to  refuse  to  keep  Sunday,  will  be  treason,  as 
declared  by  one  of  their  own  preachers  (Rev.  W.  M.  Grier, 
of  Due  West,  South  Carolina)  in  the  Philadelphia  conven- 
tion, 1888  :  — 

*'  Every  sin,  secret  or  public,  against  God,  is  a  sin 
against  our  country,  and  is  high  treason  against  the 
State."  —  Christian  Statesman,  August  9,  1888. 

Every  sin,  whether  "secret  or  public,"  being  "high 
treason  "  against  the  State,  the  State  must  punish  it,  even 
secret  sin.  But  how  shall  the  State  discover  secret  sins, 
except  by  an  Inquisition  }  This  again  confirms  the  logic 
of  the  theocratical  theory  of  earthly  government  —  that 
the  Inquisition  is  the  inevitable  consequence. 


FOURTH   AND    NINETEENTH     CENTURY    SUNDAY    LAWS.  105 

Then  so  far  as  the  National  Reformers  are  concerned, 
it  is  certain  that  they  are  ready  to  use  the  power  which 
they  are  doing  their  best  to  secure. 

In  the  Elgin  convention,  Dr.  Mandeville  said  further 
on  the  subject  of  Sunday  laws  :  — 

"  When  the  church  of  God  awakes  and  does  its  duty 
on  one  side,  and  the  State  on  the  other,  we  shall  have  no 
further  trouble  in  this  matter." 

Yes,  we  remember  how  it  was  before,  when  the  church 
and  the  State  were  united.  The  gentle  Albigenses  in 
Southern  France  greatly  disturbed  the  church.  But  the 
church  was  wide  awake  ;  for  Innocent  III.  was  pope. 
Philip  Augustus  was  king  of  France ;  and  the  church 
awoke  the  State  with  the  cry,  "  Up,  most  Christian  king  ! 
up,  and  aid  us  in  our  work  of  vengeance  !  "  And  thus, 
with  the  energy  of  the  pope  on  one  side,  and  of  Philip  on 
the  other,  the  soldiers  of  Philip  marched  down  upon  the 
Albigenses,  and  swept  them  from  the  earth.  And  as 
''the  church  did  its  duty  on  one  side  and  the  State  on  the 
other,"  there  was  no  further  trouble  in  that  matter. 

In  September,  1888,  a  minister  in  Selma,  Cal.,  preach- 
ing on  the  subject  of  Sunday  temperance  and  Sunday 
prohibition,  said  :  — 

"  We  have  laws  to  punish  the  man  who  steals  our 
property  ;  but  we  have  no  law  to  prevent  people  from 
working  on  Sunday.  It  is  right  that  the  thief  be  punished  ; 
but  I  have  more  sympathy  for  that  man  than  I  have  for 
him  that  works  on  that  day." 

Let  that  man  have  control  of  the  power  to  compel  a 
man  to  keep  Sunday,  and  he  will  punish  the  man  who 
works  on  Sunday,  just  as  he  would  a  thief. 

At  a  National  Reform  W.  C.  T.  U.  convention  held 
at  Lakeside,  Ohio,  in  1887,  the  following  question  was 
asked  :  — 


106  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

"  Will  not  the  National  Reform  movement  result  in  per- 
secution against  those  who  on  some  points  believe  differ- 
ently from  the  majority,  even  as  the  recognition  of  the 
Christian  religion  by  the  Roman  power  resulted  in  griev- 
ous persecution  against  true  Christians?" 

Answer,  by  Dr.  Mc  AUister  :  — 

*'  Now  notice  the  fallacy  here.  The  recognition  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  religion  by  the  State,  made  that  State  a 
persecuting  power.  Why  }  —  Because  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic religion  is  a  persecuting  religion.  If  true  Christianity 
is  a  persecuting  religion,  then  the  acknowledgment  of  our 
principles  by  the  State  will  make  the  State  a  persecutor. 
But  if  the  true  Christian  religion  is  a  religion  of  liberty,  a 
religion  that  regards  the  rights  of  all,  then  the  acknowl- 
edgment of  those  principles  by  the  State  will  make  the 
State  the  guardian  of  all  men,  and  the  State  will  be  no 
persecutor.     True  religion  never  persecutes." 

There  is  indeed  a  fallacy  here  ;  but  it  Is  not  in  the 
question  ;  it  is  in  the  answer.  That  which  made  the 
Roman  State  a  persecuting  power,  says  the  Doctor,  was 
its  recognition  of  the  Catholic  religion,  "which  is  a  per- 
secuting religion."  But  the  Roman  Catholic  religion  is  not 
the  only  persecuting  religion  that  has  been  in  the  world. 
Presbyterianism  persecuted  while  John  Calvin  ruled  in 
Geneva ;  it  persecuted  while  the  Covenanters  ruled  in 
Scotland  ;  it  persecuted  while  it  held  the  power  in  En- 
gland. Congregationalism  persecuted  while  it  had  the 
power  in  New  England.  Episcopalianism  persecuted  in 
England  and  in  Virginia.  Every  religion  that  has  been 
allied  with  the  civil  power,  or  that  has  controlled  the  civil 
power,  has  been  a  persecuting  religion  ;  and  such  will 
always  be  the  case.  Mr.  Mc  Allister's  implied  statement 
is  true,  that  "true  Christianity  never  persecutes  ;"  but  it 
is  true  only  because  true  Christianity  never  will  allow 
itself  to  be  allied  in  any  way  with  the  civil  power,  or  to 
receive  any  support  from  it.     The  National  Reform  Asso- 


FOURTH    AND    NINETEENTH     CENTURY    SUNDAY    LAWS.  107 

ciation  does  propose  to  '^  enforce  upon  all,  the  laws  of 
Christian  morality  ; "  it  proposes  to  have  the  Government 
adopt  the  National  Reform  religion,  and  then  *'lay  its 
hand  upon  any  religion  that  does  not  conform  to  it ; "  and 
it  asserts  that  the  civil  power  has  the  right  ''  to  command 
the  consciences  of  men."  Now  any  such  thing  carried 
into  effect  as  is  here  plainly  proposed  by  that  Association, 
can  never  be  anything  else  than  persecution.  But  Mr. 
Mc  Allister  affirms  that  the  National  Reform  movement, 
if  successful,  would  not  lead  to  persecution,  **  because 
true  religion  never  persecutes."  The  Doctor's  argument 
amounts  only  to  this  :  The  National  Reform  religion  is 
the  true  religion.  True  religion  never  persecutes.  There- 
fore to  compel  men  to  conform  to  the  true  religion,  —  that 
is,  the  religion  that  controls  the  civil  power,  —  is  not* 
persecution. 

In  A.  D.  556,  Pope  Pelagius  called  upon  Narses  to 
compel  certain  parties  to  obey  the  pope's  command. 
Narses  refused,  on  the  ground  that  it  would  be  perse- 
cution. The  pope  answered  Narses's  objection  with  this 
argument :  — 

*'  Be  not  alarmed  at  the  idle  talk  of  some,  crying  out 
against  persecution,  and  reproaching  the  church,  as  if  she 
delighted  in  cruelty,  when  she  punishes  evil  with  whole- 
some severities,  or  procures  the  salvation  of  souls.  He 
alone  persecutes  who  forces  to  evil.  But  to  restrain  men 
from  doing  evil,  or  to  punish  those  who  have  done  it,  is 
not  persecution,  or  cruelty,  but  love  of  mankind."  —  Bow- 
er's History  of  the  Popes,  Pelagius,  A.  D.  556. 

Compare  this  with  Dr.  Mc  Allister's  answer,  and  find 
any  difference,  in  principle,  between  them,  who  can.  There 
is  no  difference.  The  argument  is  identical.  It  is  the 
essential  spirit  of  the  papacy  which  is  displayed  in  both, 
and  in  that  of  Pope  Pelagius  no  more  than  in  that  of  Dr. 
Mc  Allister. 


108  CIVIL   GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

Another  question,  or  rather  statement,  was  this :  — 

''There  is  a  law  in  the  State  of  Arkansas  enforcing 
Sunday  observance  upon  the  people,  and  the  result  has 
been  that  many  good  persons  have  not  only  been  impris- 
oned, but  have  lost  their  property,  and  even  their  lives." 

Answer,  by  Dr.  Mc  Allister  :  — 

'*  It  is  better  that  a  few  should  suffer,  than  that  the 
whole  nation  should  lose  its  Sabbath." 

This  argument  is  identical  with  that  by  which  the 
Pharisees  in  Christ's  day  justified  themselves  in  killing 
him.     It  was  said  :  — 

"  It  is  expedient  for  us  that  one  man  should  die  for  the 
people,  and  that  the  whole  nation  perish  not."  John 
11 :  50. 

And  then  says  the  record  :  — 

"Then  from  that  day  forth  they  took  counsel  together 
for  to  put  him  to  death."     Verse  53. 

The  argument  used  in  support  of  the  claim  of  right  to 
use  this  power,  is  identical  with  that  used  by  the  papacy 
in  inaugurating  her  persecutions  ;  the  argument  in  justifi- 
cation of  the  use  of  the  power,  is  identical  with  that  by 
which  the  murderers  of  Jesus  Christ  justified  themselves 
in  accomplishing  that  wicked  deed  ;  and  if  anybody  thinks 
that  these  men  in  our  day,  proceeding  upon  the  identical 
theory,  in  the  identical  way,  and  justifying  their  proceed- 
ings by  arguments  identical  with  those  of  the  papacy  and 
the  murderous  Pharisees,  —  if  anybody  thinks  that  these 
men  will  stop  short  of  persecution,  he  has  vastly  more 
confidence  in  apostate  humanity  than  we  have. 

Nor  are  we  left  wholly  to  logical  deduction  in  this. 
Dec.  14,  1887,  Rev.  W.  T.  Mc  Connell,  of  Youngstown, 
Ohio,  published  in  the  Christian  Nation  an  open  letter 
to  the  editor  of  the  American  Sentinel,  in  which  he 
said  :  — 


FOURTH   AND    NINETEENTH    CENTURY    SUNDAY   LAWS.  10^ 

"  You  look  for  trouble  in  this  land  in  the  future,  if 
these  principles  are  applied.  I  think  it  will  come  to  you, 
if  you  maintain  your  present  position.  The  fool-hardy 
fellow  who  persists  in  standing  on  a  railroad  track,  may 
well  anticipate  trouble  when  he  hears  the  rumble  of  the 
coming  train.  If  he  shall  read  the  signs  of  the  times  in 
the  screaming  whistle  and  flaming  head-light,  he  may 
change  his  position  and  avoid  the  danger  ;  but  if  he  won't 
be  influenced  by  these,  his  most  gloomy  forebodings  of 
trouble  will  be  realized  when  the  express^  strikes  him.  So 
you,  neighbor,  if,  through  prejudice  or  the  enmity  of 
unregenerate  hearts,  you  have  determined  to  oppose  the 
progress  of  this  nation  in  fulfilling  its  vocation  as  an 
instrument  in  the  divine  work  of  regenerating  human 
society,  may  rightly  expect  trouble.  It  will  be  sure  to 
come  to  you." 

Certainly  it  will.  That  is  the  spirit  of  the  wicked 
scheme  from  the  first  effort  ever  made  to  secure  a  Sunday 
law  unto  this  last. 

We  need  not  multiply  evidences  further,  to  show  that 
this  whole  religio-political  Sunday-law  movement  of  our 
day  is  of  the  same  piece  with  that  in  the  fourth  century. 
The  theory  is  the  same  ;  the  means  and  the  arguments  are 
the  same  in  both  ;  and  two  things  that  are  so  precisely 
alike  in  the  making,  will  be  exactly  alike  when  they  are 
made.  That  in  the  fourth  century  made  the  papacy  ; 
and  this  in  the  nineteenth  century  will  make  a  living 
likeness  of  the  papacy. 

How  appropriate,  therefore,  it  is  that  Cardinal  Gibbons 
should  indorse  the  national  Sunday  bill !  How  natural, 
indeed,  that  he  should  gladly  add  his  name  to  the  number 
of  petitioners  in  support  of  the  movement  to  secure  legis- 
lation in  the  interests  of  the  church  !  He  knows  just  how 
his  brethren  in  the  fourth  century  worked  the  thing  ;  he 
knows  what  the  outcome  of  the  movement  was  then  ;  and 
he  knows  full  well  what  the  outcome  of  this  movement 
will  be  now.  He.  knows  that  the  theory  underlying  this 
movement   is   identical   with   the   theory   which    was    the 


110  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

basis  of  that ;  he  knows  the  methods  of  working  are  the 
same  now  as  they  were  then  ;  he  knows  that  the  means 
employed  now,  to  secure  control  of  the  civil  power,  are 
identical  with  the  means  employed  then  ;  and  he  knows 
that  the  result  must  be  the  same.  He  knows  that  when 
religion  shall  have  been  established  as  an  essential  element 
in  legislation  in  this  government,  the  experience  of  fifteen 
hundred  eventful  years,  and  "  the  ingenuity  and  patient 
care  "  of  fifty  generations  of  statesmen,  will  not  be  lost  in 
the  effort  to  make  the  papal  power  supreme  over  all  here 
and  now,  as  was  done  there  and  then.  And  in  carrying 
out  the  instructions  of  Pope  Leo  XIII.,  that  *'all  Catholics 
should  do  all  in  their  power  to  cause  the  constitutions  of 
States  and  legislation  to  be  modeled  upon  the  principles 
of  the  true  church,"  the  Cardinal  assuredly  is  glad  to  have 
the  opportunity  to  add  his  name  to  the  more  than  six  mill- 
ions of  Protestants  who  are  set  for  the  accomplishment 
of  the  same  task. 

To  those  so-called  Protestants  who  are  so  anxious  to 
make  religion  a  subject  of  legislation,  it  now  appears  very 
desirable ;  and  it  also  appears  a  very  pleasant  thing  to  secure 
the  alliance  of  the  papacy.  But  when  they  shall  have  ac- 
complished the  feat,  and  find  themselves  in  the  midst  of  a 
continuous  whirl  of  political  strife  and  contention  with  the 
papacy,  not  alone  for  supremacy,  but  for  existence^ — then 
they  will  find  it  not  nearly  so  desirable  as  it  now  appears 
to  their  vision,  blinded  by  the  lust  for  illegitimate  power. 

And  when  they  find  themselves  compelled  to  pay  more 
than  they  bargained  to,  they  will  have  but  themselves  to 
blame  ;  for  when  they  make  religion  a  subject  of  legisla- 
tion, they  therein  confess  that  it  is  justly  subject  to  the 
rule  of  majorities.  And  then,  if  the  Romish  Church  se- 
cures the  majority,  and  compels  the  Protestants  to  con- 
form to  Catholic  forms  and  ordinances,  the  Protestants 
cannot  justly  complain. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE   WORKINGS    OF   A   SUNDAY   LAW. 

We  have  shown  by  the  literature  and  the  logic  of  this 
whole  Sunday-law  question,  that  if  the  movement  should 
succeed,  it  would  be  but  the  establishment  of  a  religious 
despotism  in  this  country.  We  have  shown  by  their  own 
statements  that  the  principles  held  by  the  National  Re- 
formers are  essentially  papal,  and  that  in  the  carrying  out 
of  these  principles,  they  deliberately  make  propositions 
that  betray  the  spirit  of  the  Inquisition.  But  we  are  not 
compelled  to  stop  with  the  principles  or  the  logic  of  the 
case.  We  have  some  facts  which  show  that  such  is  the 
only  effect  of  the  kind  of  Sunday  laws  these  people 
demand,  as  embodied  in  the  Blair  Sunday  bill. 

In  1885,  Arkansas  had  Sunday  laws  reading  as  fol- 
lows :  — 

"  Section  1883.  Every  person  who  shall  on  the  Sab- 
bath, or  Sunday,  be  found  laboring,  or  shall  compel  his 
apprentice  or  servant  to  labor  or  perform  service  other 
than  customary  household  duties  of  daily  necessity,  com- 
fort, or  charity,  on  conviction  thereof  shall  be  fined  one 
dollar  for  each  separate  offense. 

"Sec.  1884.  Every  apprentice  or  servant  compelled  to 
labor  on  Sunday  shall  be  deemed  a  separate  offense  of 
the  master. 

"Sec.  1885.  The  provision  of  this  act  shall  not  apply 
to  steamboats  and  other  vessels  navigating  the  waters 
of  the  State,  nor  such  manufacturing  establishments  as 
require  to  be  kept  in  continual  operation. 

[HI] 


112  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

**Sec.  1886.  Persons  who  are  members  of  any  religious 
society  who  observe  as  Sabbath  any  other  day  of  the  week 
than  the  Christian  Sabbath,  or  Sunday,  shall  not  be  sub- 
ject to  the  penalties  of  this  act  (the  Sunday  law),  so  that 
they  observe  one  day  in  seven,  agreeable  to  the  faith  and 
practice  of  their  church  or  society." 

In  the  session  of  the  Arkansas  Legislature  of  1885, 
Section  1886  was  repealed,  by  act  of  March  3.  The 
object  of  those  who  secured  the  repeal  of  that  section, 
was,  as  they  said,  to  close  the  saloons.  It  was  claimed 
that  under  cover  of  that  section,  certain  Jews  who  kept 
saloons  in  Little  Rock,  had  successfully  defied  the  law 
against  Sunday  saloons,  and  that  there  was  no  way  to 
secure  the  proper  enforcement  of  the  law  without  the 
repeal  of  that  section.  The  legislators  believed  the  state- 
ments made,  and  repealed  the  section  as  stated. 

The  history  of  the  repeal,  according  to  the  journals 
of  the  Senate  and  the  House  of  the  Arkansas  General 
Assembly,  is  as  follows  :  — 

The  legislature  convened  Jan.  12,  1885.  January  24, 
Senator  Anderson  introduced  a  bill  —  Senate  bill  number 
TO  —  entitled,  **  A  Bill  to  Prevent  Sabbath-breaking,"  which 
was  read  the  first  time.  January  26,  it  was  read  the  sec- 
ond time,  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Judiciary. 
January  31,  it  was  reported  back  by  Mr.  Hicks,  chairman 
of  the  committee,  with  the  recommendation  that  it  should 
pass.  February  3,  it  was  read  the  third  time,  and  put 
upon  its  passage,  and  was  carried  by  a  vote  of  twenty-two 
to  four.  Absent  or  not  voting,  six.  It  was  then  sent  to 
the  House,  and  was  read  for  the  first  time  there  February 
3.  The  rules  were  then  suspended  ;  it  was  read  a  second 
time,  and  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Judiciary. 
Some  amendments  were  offered,  which  were  also  referred 
to  the  committee,  with  the  bill.  February  24,  this  commit- 
tee made  the  following  report : — 


THE     WORKINGS    OF   A    SUNDAY    LAW.  113 

*'  Mr.  Speaker  :  Your  Committee  on  Judiciary,  to  whom 
was  referred  the  Senate  bill  No.  '70,  a  bill  to  prevent  Sab- 
bath-breaking, beg  leave  to  report  that  they  have  had  the 
bill  under  consideration,  and  herewith  return  the  same, 
with  the  recommendation  that  it  be  passed  without 
amendment.  Thornburgh,  Chairman!' 

February  27,  the  bill  was  read  the  third  time  in  the 
House,  put  upon  its  passage,  and  was  carried  by  a  vote  of 
sixty-three  to  twenty-six.  Absent  or  not  voting,  six. 
The  same  day,  the  House  notified  the  Senate  that  it  had 
passed  Senate  bill  No.  YO.  March  Y,  1885,  the  act  re- 
ceived the  approval    of  the  governor,  Simon  P.  Hughes. 

Bear  in  mind  that  the  object  of  this  movement  was 
said  to  be  to  close  the  saloons  on  Sunday  ;  and  what  dis- 
cussion there  was  on  the  bill  in  both  the  Senate  and  the 
House,  shows  that  such  was  the  object,  so  far  as  the  legis- 
lators understood  it.  But  when  the  act  was  secured,  and 
was  framed  into  a  law,  not  a  saloon  was  closed,  nor  was  there 
an  attempt  made,  any  more  than  before,  to  close  them. 
Not  one  of  the  saloon-keepers  was  prosecuted.  And  in 
Little  Rock  itself,  during  the  session  of  the  legislature  of 
1887,  when  the  law  was  in  full  force,  up  to  the  time  of 
the  restoration  of  the  exemption  clause,  the  saloons  kept 
their  doors  wide  open,  and  conducted  their  business  with 
no  effort  at  concealment,  the  same  as  they  had  before  the 
act  was  passed.  But,  so  far  as  we  have  been  able  to  learn 
by  diligent  investigation,  from  the  day  of  its  passage, 
the  law  was  used  for  no  other  purpose  than  to  punish 
peaceable  citizens  of  the  State  who  observed  the  seventh 
day  as  the  Sabbath,  and  exercised  their  God-given  right 
to  work  on  Sunday. 


114  CIVIL   GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

FIRST    CASE. 

Eld.  J.    W.  Scoles. 

Eld.  J.  W.  Scoles,  a  Seventh-day  Adventist  minister, 
had  gone  from  Michigan  to  Arkansas  in  June,  1884,  to 
assist  Eld.  D.  A.  Wellman  in  holding  some  meetings  at 
Springdale,  Washington  Co.  As  the  result  of  these  meet- 
ings, quite  a  number  of  persons  adopted  the  faith  of  that 
body,  and  practiced  accordingly.  In  August,  1884,  Eld. 
Wellman  died,  and  Eld.  Scoles  continued  the  work  in  that 
place.  In  the  winter  of  1884-85,  Eld.  J.  G.  Wood  went 
from  Appleton  City,  Mo.,  to  assist  Eld.  Scoles  at  Spring- 
dale.  A  church  was  organized  in  that  place  early  in  1885, 
and  the  erection  of  a  meeting-house  was  begun  at  once. 
In  addition  to  his  subscription  to  the  enterprise,  Eld. 
Scoles  agreed  to  paint  the  house  when  it  should  be  ready. 
Further  than  this,  we  have  the  words  of  Eld.  Scoles  him- 
self    He  says  :  — 

'*  I  volunteered  to  do  the  painting  as  my  share  of  the 
work,  in  addition  to  my  subscription.  I  worked  away  at 
the  church  at  odd  times,  sometimes  half  a  day  and  some- 
times more,  as  I  could  spare  the  time.  The  last  Sunday 
in  April,  1885,  in  order  to  finish  the  work  so  I  could  be 
free  to  go  out  for  the  summer's  labor  with  the  tent,  and 
expecting  to  go  the  next  day  twenty  miles,  I  went  over 
to  the  church,  and  finished  up  a  small  strip  of  painting  on 
the  south  side  of  the  house,  clear  out  of  sight  of  all  public 
roads  ;  and  here  I  quietly  worked  away  for  perhaps  two 
hours,  in  which  time  I  finished  it,  and  then  went  home. 
It  was  for  this  offense  that  I  was  indicted." 

At  the  fall  term  of  the  Circuit  Court  held  at  Fayette- 
ville,  Mr.  J.  A.  Armstrong,  of  Springdale,  was  summoned 
before  the  Grand  Jury.  He  was  asked  if  he  knew  of  any 
violations  of  the  Sunday  law.     He  said  he  did. 

Grand  Jury.  —  "  Who  are  they  }  " 

Armstrong.  —  '*  The 'Frisco  Railroad  is  running  trains 
every  Sunday." 


THE   WORKINGS   OF  A   SUNDAY   LAW.  115 

G.  J.  —  **  Do  you  know  of  any  others." 

A.  —  **  Yes  ;  the  hotels  of  this  place  are  open,  and  do  a 
full  run  of  business  on  Sunday,  as  on  other  days." 

G.  y.  —  ''  Do  you  know  of  any  others  t " 

A. — "  Yes,  sir  ;  the  drug-stores  and  barber-shops  all 
keep  open,  and  do  business  every  Sunday." 

G.  J.  — ''  Do  you  know  of  any  others  } " 

A.  —  "Yes;  the  livery-stables  do  more  business  on 
Sunday  than  on  any  other  day  of  the  week." 

After  several  repetitions  of  this  same  form  of  questions 
and  answers,  in  much  the  same  manner,  in  relation  to 
other  lines  of  business,  this  question  was  reached  :  — 

G.  J.  —  *'Do  you  know  of  any  Seventh-day  Adventists 
who  ever  work  on  Sunday  }  " 

^.— ''Yes,  sir." 

After  getting  from  the  witness  the  names  of  his  breth- 
ren, indictments  were  found    against  five   persons,  all  of 
whom    were    Seventh-day    Adventists.     Eld.   Scoles    was 
one  of  the  five.     The  indictment  read  as  follows  :  — 
**  State  of  Arkansas  ] 

vs.  \  Indictment. 

J.  W.  Scoles.  ) 

"The  Grpnd  Jury  of  Washington  County,  in  the  name 
and  by  the  a"thority  of  the  State  of  Arkansas,  accuse 
J.  W.  Scoles  of  the  crime  of  Sabbath-breaking,  committed 
as  follows  ;  viz.,  the  said  J.  W.  Scoles,  on  Sunday,  the  26th 
day  of  April,  1885,  in  the  county  and  State  aforesaid,  did 
unlawfully  perform  labor  other  than  customary  household 
duties  of  daily  comfort,  necessity,  or  charity,  against  the 
peace  and  dignity  of  the  State  of  Arkansas. 

"J.  P.  Henderson,  Pros.  Atfy^ 

Mr.  Scoles  was  convicted.  An  appeal  was  taken  to  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  State.  October  30,  1886,  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Circuit  Court  was  affirmed  by  the  Supreme 
Court.  Almost  a  score  of  cases  essentially  the  same  as 
the  case  of  Eld.  Scoles,  were  held  over  in  the  different 
Circuit  Courts  of  the  State,  awaiting  the  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court  in  his  case.  All  these  cases  now  came  up 
for  trial,  of  which  we  print  the  facts  :  — 


116  CIVIL   GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

SECOND   CASE. 
Allen  Meeks,  Star  of  the  West,  Ark. 

Mr.  Meeks  had  been  a  resident  of  Arkansas  since  1856, 
with  the  exception  of  one  year.  He  had  held  the  office  of 
Justice  of  the  Peace  for  a  number  of  years  both  before 
and  after  the  war.  When  he  became  a  Seventh-day  Ad- 
ventist,  he  refused  to  hold  the  office  longer,  because  its 
duties  conflicted  with  his  observance  of  the  Sabbath. 

Mr.  Meeks  was  indicted  at  the  July  term  of  the  Circuit 
Court,  1885,  for  Sabbath-breaking.  He  was  arrested  in 
November,  1885,  and  held  under  bonds  of  $500  for  his  ap- 
pearance in  January.  The  offense  for  which  he  was  in- 
dicted, was  planting  potatoes  on  Sunday  —  the  third  Sun- 
day in  March,  1885.  The  work  was  done  near  Mr.  Meeks's 
own  house,  and  not  nearer  than  two  and  a  half  miles 
to  any  public  road  or  any  place  of  public  worship. 

On  the  day  referred  to,  Mr.  La  Fever  and  his  wife  went 
to  visit  Mr.  Meeks  at  his  home,  and  found  Mr.  Meeks 
planting  potatoes.  Mr.  Meeks  quit  his  work,  and  spent 
the  rest  of  the  day  visiting  with  Mr.  La  Fever.  La  Fever 
afterward  reported  Mr.  Meeks  to  the  Grand  Jury  ;  and  as 
the  consequence,  Mr.  Meeks  was  indicted  as  stated.  The 
fourth  Monday  in  January,  Meeks  appeared  before  Judge 
Heme.  His  case  was  laid  over  to  await  the  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Scoles  case. 

THIRD    CASE. 

Joe  Mc  Coy,  Magnet  Cove,  A  rk, 

Mr.  McCoy  moved  from  Louisville,  Ky.,  to  Arkansas, 
in  1873.  He  served  as  constable  seven  years,  and  two 
terms  as  Justice  of  the  Peace,  in  Hot  Springs  County.     In 

1884,  he  became  a  Seventh-day  Adventist.   At  the  August, 

1885,  term  of  the  Circuit  Court   in   Hot  Springs  County, 
he  was   indicted  for  Sabbath-breaking,   on    the  voluntary 


THE    WORKINGS    OF   A    SUNDAY    LAW.  117 

evidence  of  a  Mr.  Thomas  Garrett.  The  particular  offense 
with  which  he  was  charged,  was  plowing  on  Sunday.  The 
witness  was  a  Mr.  Weatherford,  a  member  of  the  Method- 
ist Church.  The  work  was  done  half  a  mile  from  any 
public  road,  and  entirely  away  from  any  place  of  public 
worship. 

Mr.  Weatherford  went  into  the  field  where  Sir.  Mc  Coy 
was  plowing,  and  spent  several  hours  with  him,  walking 
around  as  he  plowed.  He  was  summoned  as  a  witness  in 
the  case,  by  the  Grand  Jury.  In  September,  1885,  Mr. 
Mc  Coy  was  arrested,  and  held  under  bonds  for  his  ap- 
pearance. When  he  appeared  at  the  February  term  of 
Court,  his  case,  with  others,  was  laid  over  to  await  the 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court. 

Mr.  Mc  Coy  owned  a  small  farm  and  a  team,  and  fore- 
seeing, as  he  thought,  that  they  would  soon  be  consumed 
in  paying  fines  and  costs,  he  could  not  in  duty  to  his 
family  and  in  harmony  with  his  conscientious  convictions 
of  right  and  duty,  allow  all  his  property  to  go  in  that 
way  ;  neither  could  he  afford  to  lose  a  whole  day  every 
week.  He  therefore  decided  to  abandon  his  farm,  leaving 
it  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  the  law  against  him  in  this 
case,  and  leave  that  country,  hoping  by  this  means  to  save 
at  least  his  team  and  personal  property.  By  the  advice  of 
Eld.  Dan.  T.  Jones,  and  at  his  earnest  request,  Mr.  Mc  Coy 
returned  to  Hot  Springs  County  at  the  time  for  his  ap- 
pearance, February,  1887,  and  confessed  judgment  under 
the  indictment.  A  portion  of  the  cost  was  remitted,  and 
the  fine  and  a  portion  of  the  cost  were  paid  by  Eld.  Jones, 
and  Mr.  Mc  Coy  was   released. 

Mr.  Mc  Coy  said  to  Eld.  Jones,  with  tears  in  his  eyes, 
that  while  he  was  reckless  and  wicked,  he  was  not  mo- 
lested ;  but  as  soon  as  he  turned  and  tried  to  live  a 
religious  life,  he  was  indicted  and  fined  for  it. 


118  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

FOURTH    CASE. 
y.  L.  Shockey,  Malvern,  Ark. 

Mr.  J.  L.  Shockey  was  a  Seventh-day  Adventist  who 
moved  from  Ohio  in  1884,  and  settled  on  a  piece  of  rail- 
road land  six  miles  north  of  Malvern,  the  county  seat  of 
Hot  Springs  Co.,  Ark. 

About  the  middle  of  April,  1885,  Mr.  Shockey  was 
plowing  in  his  field  on  Sunday,  one  and  three  quarters  of 
a  mile  from  any  place  of  public  worship,  and  entirely  out 
of  sight  of  any  place  of  worship.  He  was  observed  by 
D.  B.  Sims  and  C.  B.  Fitzhugh.  He  was  reported  to  the 
Grand  Jury  by  Anthony  Wallace,  a  member  of  the  Bap- 
tist Church.  Sims  and  Fitzhugh  were  summoned  as 
witnesses  by  the  Grand  Jury.  Mr.  Sims  was  hunting 
stock  when  he  saw  Mr.  Shockey  at  work  on  Sunday. 
The  Grand  Jury  found  a  true  bill.  Mr.  Shockey  was 
arrested  Sept.  14,  1885,  and  gave  bond  to  the  amount  of 
$110  for  his  appearance  at  the  February  term  of  the  Cir- 
cuit Court  in  the  Seventh  Judicial  District,  held  at  Mal- 
vern. On  the  1st  day  of  February,  1886,  Mr.  Shockey 
appeared  before  Judge  J.  B.  Wood.  In  the  meantime,  the 
Scoles  case  had  been  appealed  to  the  Supreme  Court  ; 
and  at  the  request  of  the  judge,  the  prosecuting  attorney 
consented  to  continue  the  case,  to  await  the  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court. 

FIFTH    CASE. 
James  M.  Pool 

James  M.  Pool,  a  Seventh-day  Adventist,  was  indicted 
for  Sabbath-breaking,  at  the  fall  term  of  the  Circuit  Court 
held  at  Fayetteville,  beginning  the  first  Monday  in  Sep- 
tember, 1885. 

He  waived  his  right  to  jury  trial.  The  only  witness  in 
the  case  was  J.  W.  Cooper.  Cooper  was  a  member  of  the 
Presbyterian    Church,    and    professed    sanctification.     He 


THE    WORKINGS    OF    A    SUNDAY    LAW.  119 

went  to  Pool's  house  on  Sunday  morning,  to  buy  some 
tobacco,  and  found  Pool  hoeing  in  his  garden  ;  so  testified 
before  the  court,  Judge  Pittman  presiding.  The  judge 
sustained  the  indictment,  pronounced  Pool  guilty,  and 
fined  him  one  dollar  and  costs,  amounting  to  $30.90. 

SIXTH    CASE. 
James  A.  Armstrong,  Springdale,  Ark. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Armstrong  moved  from  Warren  Co.,  Ind.,  to 
Springdale,  Ark.,  in  1878.  In  September,  1884,  he  joined 
the  Seventh-day  Adventist  church  at  Springdale.  No- 
vember, 1885,  he  was  indicted  by  the  Grand  Jury  for  Sab- 
bath-breaking. On  the  IZWv  of  February,  1886,  he  was 
arrested  by  William  Holcomb,  deputy-sheriff  for  Wash- 
ington County,  and  was  held  under  bonds  of  $250  for  his 
appearance  at  the  May  term  of  the  Circuit  Court.  The 
particulai  offense  upon  which  the  charge  of  Sabbath- 
breaking  was  based,  was  for  digging  potatoes  in  his  field 
on  Sunday.  Millard  Courtney  was  the  prosecuting  wit- 
ness. Mr.  Armstrong  had  a  contract  for  building  the 
school-house  at  Springdale.  Mr.  Courtney,  with  a  friend, 
went  to  Armstrong's  house  on  Sunday,  to  negotiate  a 
contract  for  putting  the  tin  roof  on  the  school-house. 
From  the  house  they  went  into  the  field  where  Mr. 
Armstrong  was  digging  potatoes.  There  the  business 
was  all  talked  over,  and  the  contract  was  secured 
for  putting  on  the  tin  roof.  Then  this  same  Courtney 
became  the  prosecuting  witness  against  Mr.  Armstrong 
for  working  on  Sunday. 

On  the  first  Monday  in  May,  Mr.  Armstrong  appeared 
before  Judge  Pittman,  Circuit  Judge  of  the  Fourth  Judi- 
cial District,  at  Fayetteville  ;  and,  waiving  his  right  to 
jury  trial,  submitted  his  case  to  the  Court  for  decision. 
Judge  Pittman  sustained  the  indictment.  Fine  and  costs, 
amounting  to  $26.50,  w^ere  paid,  and  Mr.  Armstrong  was 
released. 


120  CIVIL   GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

SEVENTH    CASE. 
Willia77i  L,  Gentry. 

Mr.  Gentry  had  been  a  citizen  of  Arkansas  since  1849. 
He  had  served  as  Justice  of  the  Peace  for  eight  years,  and 
then  refused  to  accept  the  office  longer.  He  had  served  as 
Associate -Justice  of  the  County  Court  for  two  years. 
He  had  been  a  Seventh-day  Adventist  since  18Y7,  —  a 
member  of  the  Seventh-day  Adventist  church  at  Star  of 
the  West,  Pike  Co.,  Ark. 

At  the  January  term  of  the  Circuit  Court,  in  1886,  he 
was  indicted  by  the  Grand  Jury  for  Sabbath-breaking, 
the  particular  offense  being  his  plowing  on  his  own  farm, 
July  2,  1886.  He  was  arrested  by  the  deputy-sheriff,  and 
held  under  $500  bonds  for  his  appearance  at  the  July 
term  of  the  Circuit  Court.  On  the  fourth  Monday  in  July, 
Mr.  Gentry  appeared  before  Judge  Heme,  of  the  Eighth 
Judicial  District.  At  his  request,  his  case  was  continued, 
to  await  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Scoles 
case.  In  the  month  of  January,  1887,  his  case  was  called 
for  trial,  as  the  Supreme  Court  had  sustained  the  decis- 
ion of  the  Circuit  Court  in  the  Scoles  case.  Mr.  Gentry 
confessed  judgment,  but  did  not  have  the  money  to 
pay  the  fine  and  costs.  Judge  Heme  ordered  the 
defendant  kept  in  custody  until  the  fine  and  costs 
were  paid.  Mr.  Gentry,  having  the  confidence  of  the 
sheriff,  was  allowed  the  freedom  of  the  town.  On  the 
last  day  of  Court,  the  sheriff  notified  him  that  unless  the 
fine  and  costs  were  paid,  he  would  hire  him  out.  The 
laws  of  Arkansas  provide  that  in  cases  where  the  parties 
fail  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  the  law,  they  shall  be  put 
up  by  the  sheriff,  and  sold  to  the  highest  bidder,  the  bids 
being  for  the  amount  of  wages  to  be  paid  per  day.  They 
are  then  worked  under  the  same  rules  and  regulations  as 
convicts    in    the    penitentiaries.     Mr.    Gentry   was  sixty- 


THE   WORKINGS    OF    A    SUNDAY    LAW.  121 

five  years  old,  and  not  wishing  to  submit  to  such  bar- 
barous treatment,  paid  two  dollars,  all  the  money  he  had, 
and  gave  his  note  for  the  remaining  amount,  $26.80. 

EIGHTH    CASE. 
Pies.  A.  Pannell,  Star  of  the  West,  Ark. 

Mr.  Pannell,  a  Seventh-day  Adventist,  was  indicted  by 
the  Grand  Jury  in  January,  1886,  for  Sabbath-breaking, 
the  particular  offense  charged  being  his  plowing  in  his 
field  on  Sunday.  He  was  arrested,  and  held  under  bonds 
of  $250  for  his  appearance.  At  his  request,  his  case  was 
laid  over  to  await  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in 
the  Scoles  case.  At  the  January  term,  in  1887,  that  case 
having  been  decided  adversely,  he  appeared,  and  confessed 
judgment.  His  fine  and  costs  amounted  to  $28.80  ;  and 
not  being  able  to  pay,  he  was  kept  in  jail  four  days,  and 
then  informed  that  unless  some  satisfactory  arrangements 
were  made,  he  would  be  sold,  and  would  have  to  work  out 
his  fine  and  costs  at  seventy-five  cents  a  day,  the  law  not 
allowing  the  sheriff  in  such  cases  to  accept  less  than  that 
amount.  Mr.  Pannell  paid  two  dollars  in  money,  gave  his 
note  for  $26.80,  and  was  released. 

NINTH    CASE.' 

y.  L.  James,  Star  of  fhe    West,  Ark. 

Mr.  James,  a  Seventh-day  Adventist,  was  indicted  by 
the  Grand  Jury  in  January,  1886,  for  Sabbath-breaking. 
The  particular  offense  was  for  doing  carpenter  work  on 
Sunday.  The  indictment  was  founded  on  the  testimony  of 
Mr.  Powers,  a  minister  of  the  Missionary  Baptist  Church. 
Mr.  James  was  working  on  a  house  for  a  widow,  near  the 
Hot  Springs  Railroad.  The  work  was  done  without  any 
expectation  of  receiving  payment,  and  wholly  as  a  char- 
itable act  for  the  poor  widow,  who  was  a  member  of  the 


122  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

Methodist  Church.  Mr.  James  worked  in  the  rain  to  do 
it,  because  the  widow  was  about  to  be  thrown  out  of  the 
house  in  which  she  lived,  and  had  no  place  to  shelter  her- 
self and  family.  Powers,  the  informer,  lived  about  six  hun- 
dred yards  from  where  the  work  was  done,  and  on  that 
very  Sunday  had  carried  wood  from  within  seven  rods  of 
where  Mr.  James  was  at  work,  and  chopped  up  the  wood 
in  sight  of  Mr.  James. 

Mr.  James  was  arrested,  and  gave  the  usual  bond  for 
his  appearance  in  Court.  He  appeared  before  Judge  Wood 
at  the  January  term  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  1886.  His 
case,  with  others,  was  laid  over  to  await  the  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court  in  the  Scoles  case.  The  first  Monday  in 
February,  1887,  his  case  was  called  for  trial.  He  confessed 
judgment  ;  the  regular  fine  and  costs  were  assessed,  and 
were  paid  by  Eld.  Dan.  T.  Jones,  as  the  agent  of  Mr. 
James's  brethren  at  large. 

TENTH    CASE. 

Mr.  Allen  Meeks,  tJie  second  time. 

At  the  January  term  in  1886,  Mr.  Meeks  was  indicted 
the  second  time.  July  13,  he  was  arrested  on  a  bench 
warrant  in  the  hands  of  William  La  Fever.  Meeks  gave 
bonds  for  his  appearance  at  the  July  term  of  Court.  The 
offense  was  for  fixing  his  wagon-brake  on  Sunday.  He 
was  reported  to  the  Grand  Jury  by  Riley  Warren.  War- 
ren had  gone  to  Meeks's  house  on  the  Sunday  referred 
to  in  the  indictment,  to  see  Mr.  Meeks  about  hiring  a 
teacher  for  their  public  -school,  for  both  of  them  were 
members  of  the  school  board  of  their  district.  In  the 
course  of  their  conversation,  Mr.  Meeks  incidentally  men- 
tioned having  mended  his  wagon-brake  that  morning. 
This  was  reported  to  the  Grand  Jury  by  Mr.  Warren,  and 
the  indictment  followed. 


THE   WORKINGS    OF   A    SUNDAY    LAW.  123 

At  the  July  term,  this,  with  other  cases  mentioned, 
was  held  over  to  await  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court 
in  the  Scoles  case. 

At  the  January  term'  in  188Y,  Meeks's  case  was  called. 
He  confessed  judgment  ;  the  usual  fine  and  costs  were 
assessed,  paid  by  Meeks,  and  he  was  released. 

ELEVENTH   CASE. 
John  A.  Meeks  y  Star  of  the  West,  Ark. 

John  A.  Meeks,  aged  fourteen  years,  son  of  Edward 
L.  Meeks,  was  indicted  by  the  Grand  Jury  at  the  January 
term  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  1886,  for  Sabbath-breaking. 
The  offense  was  for  shooting  squirrels  on  Sunday.  The 
place  where  the  squirrels  were  shot  was  in  a  mountainous 
district  entirely  away  from  any  public  road,  or  any  place 
of  public  worship.  He  was  reported  by  a  Mr.  M.  Reeves. 
The  sons  of  Mr.  Reeves  were  hauling  wood  with  a  team 
on  that  same  Sunday,  and  were  present  with  the  Meeks 
boy  in  the  woods,  and  scared  the  squirrels  around  the 
trees  for  the  Meeks  boy  to  shoot.  When  the  sport  was 
over,  the  Meeks  boy  divided  the  game  with  the  Reeves 
boys. 

Then  the  father  of  the  Reeves  boys  reported  the  Meeks 
boy,  and  he  was  indicted.  His  case  was  held  over  to 
await  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Scoles 
case.  At  the  January  term  in  1887,  the  boy  confessed 
judgment,  and  was  fined  $5,  and  $3  county  tax  was 
assessed,  and  the  costs,  amounting  in  all  to  $22.  The 
fine  was  paid,  and  the  boy  released. 

TWELFTH    CASE. 

John  Neusch,  Magnet  Cove,  Ark. 

Mr.  Neusch  is  a  fruit-raiser.  On  Sunday,  June  21, 
1885,  he  was  gathering  early  peaches  which  were  over- 
ripe,   and    were    in    danger  of  spoiling.     He   was   half  a 


124  CIVIL   GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

mile  from  any  public  road,  and  some  distance  from  any- 
place of  public  worship,  and  not  in  sight  of  either.  The 
orchard  was  on  the  top  of  a  mountain,  and  Mr.  Neusch 
was  not  seen  by  any  one  except  a  brother  and  a  Mr.  Hud- 
speth. Mr.  Hudspeth  was  with  Mr.  Neusch  about  one 
hour.  He  went  to  see  him  in  behalf  of  a  young  man  who 
had  been  working  for  him,  and  who,  with  others,  had 
been  caught  stealing  peaches  from  Mr.  Neusch's  orchard 
on  the  preceding  Sunday.  Mr.  Hudspeth  offered  Mr. 
Neusch  pay  for  the  peaches,  if  he  would  not  report  the 
young  man.  Mr.  Neusch  both  refused  to  accept  the 
money,  and  promised  to  say  nothing  about  the  offense, 
on  condition  that  it  should  not  be  repeated. 

February,  1886,  Mr.  Neusch  was  indicted  for  this  offense 
of  working  on  Sunday,  as  related.  Neusch,  having  been 
advised  that  there  was  most  probably  an  indictment  filed 
against  him,  went  to  the  county  clerk  and  made  inquiry 
in  regard  to  the  matter.  The  clerk  handed  him  a  writ 
for  his  arrest,  and  Neusch  took  it  to  the  sheriff,  and  gave 
bond  for  his  appearance  at  Court.  In  August,  his  case 
was  laid  over  to  await  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court 
in  the  Scoles  case.  As  soon  as  that  decision  had  been 
rendered,  Neusch  went  and  confessed  judgment,  and  paid 
the  fine  and  costs,  amounting  to  $25.  Mr.  Neusch  was  an 
observer  of  the  seventh  day. 

THIRTEENTH    CASE. 

F.  N.  Elmore y  Springdale,  Ark. 

Mr.  F.  N.  Elmore  was  indicted  at  the  March  term  of 
the  Circuit  Court  of  1886,  on  the  charge  of  Sabbath- 
breaking.  The  indictment  charged  him  with  violating 
the  Sunday  laws  by  working  on  Sunday,  Nov.  1,  1885. 
Mr.  Elmore  was  arrested  in  April,  1886,  by  Deputy-Sheriff 
Wm.  Holcomb,  and  was  held  in  $250  bail  for  his  appear- 
ance in  the  May  term  of  the  Circuit  Court.     On  the  4th  of 


THE    WORKINGS    OF    A    SUNDAY    LAW.  125 

May,  Mr.  Elmore  appeared  before  Judge  Pittman,  and 
waiving  his  right  to  jury  trial,  submitted  his  case  to  the 
Court  for  decision.  Millard  Courtney  was  the  only  wit- 
ness examined.  He  testified  that  he  had  seen  Mr.  Elmore 
digging  potatoes  on  the  day  above  referred  to,  on  the 
premises  of  Mr.  J.  A.  Armstrong.  This  work  was  done  by 
Elmore  on  the  day  when  Courtney  took  his  friend  to 
Armstrong  to  secure  the  contract  for  putting  the  tin  roof- 
ing on  the  school-house  ;  and  that  is  how  Courtney  knew 
Elmore  had  worked  on  that  day.  Elmore  was  convicted. 
The  fine  and  costs  were  $28.95,  which  was  paid,  and  he 
was  released.     Mr.  Elmore  was  a  Seventh-day  Adventist. 

FOURTEENTH     CASE. 

Willi  am  H.  Frits,  Hindsville,  Madison  Co.,  Ark. 

Mr.  Fritz  wasv  indicted  at  the  April  term  of  the  Circuit 
Court  in  1886,  for  Sabbath-breaking,  and  held  under  $250 
bonds  for  his  appearance  at  the  September  term,  at  Hunts- 
ville.  Mr.  Fritz  is  a  wood-workman,  and  the  offense 
charged  was  for  working  in  the  shop  on  Sunday.  The 
shop  was  in  the  country,  and  two  hundred  yards  from  the 
public  road.  The  indictment  was  sustained.  The  defend- 
ant was  fined  one  dollar  and  costs,  amounting  to  $28. 
Mr.  Fritz  was  a  Seventh-day  Adventist. 

FIFTEENTH    CASE. 

Z.  Swearingen. 

Mr.  Z.  Swearingen  was  a  member  of  the  church  of 
Seventh- day  Adventists.  Went  from  Michigan  to  Arkan- 
sas in  18Y9,  and  settled  on  a  small  farm  eleven  miles  south 
of  Bentonville,  the  county  seat  of  Benton  County.  He  and 
his  son  Franz,  aged  seventeen  years,  were  indicted  by  the 
Grand  Jury  at  the  April  term  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  1886, 
upon    the    charge    of  Sabbath-breaking   by   ''  performing 


126  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

labor  other  than  customary  household  duties  of  daily 
comfort,  necessity,  or  charity,  against  the  peace  and 
dignity  of  the  State  of  Arkansas,  on  Feb.  14,  1885,"  the 
same  day  being  Sunday. 

Both  were  arrested  by  F.  P.  Galbraith,  sheriff  of  Benton 
County,  in  May,  1886,  and  w^ere  put  under  bond  of  $250 
for  their  appearance  at  the  fall  term  of  the  Circuit  Court. 
Sept.  27,  1886,  the  defendants  appeared  before  Judge 
Pittman,  of  the  Fourth  Judicial  District. 

John  G.  Cowen,  witness  for  the  State,  testified  that  he 
saw  Mr.  Swearingen  and  his  son  hauling  rails  on  Sunday, 
the  14th  day  of  February,  1885,  as  he  returned  from  the 
funeral  of  Mrs.  Boggett.  Hon.  J.  W.  Walker,  attorney  for 
the  defendants,  explained  to  the  jury  that  the  defendants 
conscientiously  observed  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  as 
the  Sabbath,  in  accordance  with  the  faith  and  practice  of 
the  church  of  which  they  were  members.  The  prosecuting 
attorney  stated  to  the  jury  that  it  was  ''one  of  those  Ad- 
vent cases."  Jury  found  the  defendants  guilty,  as  charged 
in  the  indictment.  As  Mr.  Swearingen  did  not  have  the 
money  to  pay  the  fine  and  costs  for  himself  and  son, 
amounting  to  $34.20,  they  were  sent  to  jail  until  the 
money  should  be  secured. 

They  were  put  in  jail  Oct.  1,  1886.  On  the  13th  of  the 
same  month,  the  sheriff  levied  on,  and  took  possession  of, 
a  horse  belonging  to  Mr.  Swearingen.  The  horse  sold  at 
sheriff's  sale,  the  25th  of  the  same  month,  for  $26.50,  leav- 
ing a  balance  against  Mr.  Swearingen  of  $7.Y0  ;  yet  both 
he  and  his  son  were  released  the  same  day  that  the  horse 
was  sold.  On  the  15th  day  of  December,  the  sheriff 
appeared  again  on  the  premises  of  Mr.  Swearingen,  and 
presented  a  bill  for  $28.95.  Of  this  sum,  $21.25  was  for 
the  board  of  Mr.  Swearingen  and  son  while  in  jail,  and 
$7.70,  balance  on  the  fine.  Mr.  Swearingen  had  no  money 
to   pay   the   bill.     The  sheriff  levied  on    his   mare,   har- 


THE    WORKINGS    OF   A    ^UNDAY    LAW.  127 

ness,  wagon,  and  a  cow  and  calf.  Before  the  day  of  the 
sale,  however,  Mr.  Swearingen's  brethren  raised  the  money 
by  donations,  paid  the  bill,  and  secured  the  release  of  his 
property.  One  thing  about  this  case  is  to  be  noted  par- 
ticularly :  The  witness  upon  whose  testimony  these  people 
were  convicted,  said  that  he  saw  them  hauling  rails  on 
Sunday,  the  14th  day  of  February,  as  he  returned  from 
the  funeral  of  Mrs.  Boggett.  Now,  the  act  under  which 
this  prosecution  was  carried  on,  became  a  law  March  3, 
and  was  approved  by  the  Governor,  March  7.  Conse- 
quently, they  were  convicted  for  work  done  seventeen 
days  before  the  act  was  passed  under  which  they  were 
convicted. 

SIXTEENTH    CASE. 

/.  L.  Benson, 
Mr.  Benson  was  not  at  that  time  a  member  of  any 
church,  made  no  pretensions  to  religious  faith,  and  did  not 
observe  any  day.  He  had  the  contract  for  painting  the 
railroad  bridge  across  the  Arkansas  River  at  Van  Buren, 
Ark.  He  worked  a  set  of  hands  on  the  bridge  all  days  of 
the  week,  Sundays  included.  In  May,  1886,  Mr.  Benson 
and  one  of  his  men  were  arrested  on  the  charge  of 
Sabbath-breaking.  They  were  taken  to  Fort  Smith,  and 
arraigned  before  a  Justice  of  the  Peace.  The  Justice  did 
not  put  them  through  any  form  of  trial,  nor  even  ask 
them  whether  they  were  guilty  or  not  guilty,  but  read  a 
section  of  the  law  to  them,  and  told  them  he  would  make 
the  fine  as  light  as  possible,  amounting,  with  costs,  to 
$•1.75  each.  They  refused  to  pay  the  fines,  and  were 
placed  in  custody  of  the  sheriff  The  sheriff  gave  them 
the  freedom  of  the  place,  only  requiring  them  to  appear 
at  the  Justice's  office  at  a  certain  hour.  Mr.  Benson 
telegraphed  to  the  general  manager  of  the  railroad  in 
regard  to  the  matter.  The  general  manager  telegraphed 
to  his  attorney  in  that  city,  to  attend  to  the  cases. 


128  CIVIL   GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

Mr.  Benson  and  his  men  appeared  before  the  Justice 
for  a  hearing  in  their  cases.  It  was  granted,  v^ith  some 
reluctance.  The  attorney,  Mr.  Bryolair,  told  the  Justice 
it  was  a  shame  to  arrest  men  for  working  on  the  bridge  at 
the  risk  of  their  lives  to  support  their  families,  when  the 
public  work  in  their  own  town  was  principally  done  on 
Sunday.  A  hearing  was  granted,  and  the  trial  set  for  the 
next  day. 

They  were  not  placed  under  any  bonds  at  all,  but  were 
allowed  to  go  on  their  own  recognizance.  The  following 
day,  a  jury  was  impaneled  and  the  trial  begun.  The 
deputy-sheriff  was  the  leading  witness,  and  swore  posi- 
tively that  he  saw  them  at  work  on  Sunday.  The  jury 
brought  in  a  verdict  to  the  effect  that  they  had  ''  agreed  to 
disagreed  This  was  on  Wednesday.  The  following 
Monday  was  set  for  a  new  trial.  No  bond  was  even  at 
this  time  required.  The  defendants  appeared  at  the  time 
appointed,  and  plead  not  guilty.  The  Justice,  after  giving 
them  a  brief  lecture,  dismissed  the  case. 

Since  that  time  Mr.  Benson  has  become  a  Seventh-day 
Adventist,  and  perhaps  would  not  have  fared  so  easily 
had  he  been  a  Seventh-day  Adventist  when  he  was  in- 
dicted. 

SEVENTEENTH   CASE. 

James  A.  Armstrong,  the  second  time. 

On  the  9th  of  July,  1886,  Mr.  Armstrong  was  arrested 
the  second  time,  by  A.  M.  Dritt,  marshal  of  Springdale,  for 
working  on  Sunday,  June  27,  and  taken  before  the  mayor, 
S.  L.  Staples.  When  brought  before  the  mayor,  Mr. 
Armstrong  called  for  the  affidavit  on  which  the  writ  was 
issued.  The  mayor  stated  that  he  himself  had  seen  Mr. 
Armstrong  at  work  in  his  garden  on  Sunday,  and  that 
Mr.  A.  J.  Vaughn  had  called  his  attention  to  Armstrong 


THE   WORKINGS   OF  A   SUNDAY  LAW.  129 

while  he  was  at  work,  and  had  said  :  **Now,  see  that  you 
do  your  duty."  This  made  an  affidavit  unnecessary.  The 
case  was  tried  before  the  mayor,  acting  as  Justice  of  the 
Peace.     A.  J.  Vaughn  was  the  first  witness. 

Justice  of  the  Peace.  —  "  What  do  you  know  about  Mr. 
Armstrong's  working  on  Sunday,  June  27.'*" 

Vaughn.  —  "I  did  not  see  Armstrong  at  all  that  day  ; 
I  only  heard  he  was  at  work." 

J.  I.  Gladden  was  the  next  witness  called. 

Justice.  —  "What  do  you  know  about  Mr.  Armstrong's 
working  on  Sunday,  June  27.'*" 

Gladdeii.  —  ''While  at  the  depot,  I  saw  some  one  at 
work  hoeing  in  Mr.  Armstrong's  garden  ;  but  I  do  not 
know  for  certain  who  it  was." 

Millard  Courtney  was  the  next  witness  called. 

Justice.  —  ''Tell  us  what  you  know  about  Mr.  Arm- 
strong's working  on  the  Sunday  in  question." 

Courtney.  —  "  While  on  the  platform  of  the  depot,  I  saw 
some  one  hoeing  in  Mr.  Armstrong's  garden.  I  am  not 
positive  who  it  was." 

Having  failed  to  prove  anything  from  the  witnesses 
regularly  summoned,  the  case  was  "rested"  while  the 
marshal  was  sent  out  to  find  somebody  else.  He  brought 
in  Gideon  Bowman,  who  was  then  questioned  as  follows  : — 

Justice.  — "  Do  you  know  anything  about  Mr.  Arm- 
strong's doing  work  other  than  customary  household  du- 
ties of  daily  necessity,  comfort,  or  charity  on  the  Chris- 
tian Sabbath,  June  27.?" 

Bowman.  —  "I  do." 

J.  —  "  State  what  you  saw." 

B.  —  "As  I  came  into  town,  having  been  out  east,  in 
passing  Mr.  Armstrong's  house,  I  saw  him  hoeing  in  the 
garden." 

J.  —  "Did  you  recognize  this  person  to  be  J.  A.  Arm- 
strong .-* " 

^.  — "Idid." 

9 


130  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

Here  the  prosecution  rested  the  case,  and  Eld.  J.  G. 
Wood  assumed  the  cross-examination  in  behalf  of  the 
prisoner. 

Wood.  —  *'  Mr.  Bowman,  you  say  you  vjqtq  coming  along 
the  road  from  the  east  when  you  saw  Mr.  Armstrong  at 
work  in  his  garden  }  " 

B.—''l  did." 

VV.  —  "  Were  you  coming  to  town  } " 

^.  — "Iwas." 

W.  —  "  About  how  long  were  you  in  passing  Mr.  Arm- 
strong's house }  and  what  was  the  length  of  time  you  saw 
him  at  work  .?  " 

^.  —  "  I  can't  tell." 

W.  —  "Do  you  think  the  time  to  have  been  two  min- 
utes, or  more  r' 

^.  — "Don't  know;  can't  tell." 

W.  —  "  Could  it  possibly  have  exceeded  one  minute.''" 

B.  —  "I  do  n't  know.  It  makes  no  difference.  I  am  not 
here  to  be  pumped." 

W.  —  "  Mr.  Bowman,  we  are  only  wanting  the  facts  in 
the  case.  Are  you  sure  it  was  Mr.  Armstrong  you  saw 
hoeing.?     Might  it  not  have  been  some  other  man  .?" 

B.  —  "I  am  not  mistaken.  I  know  it  was  J.  A.  Arm- 
strong." 

W.  —  "  What  was  he  doing  .?  " 

B. —  "I  told  you  he  was  hoeing." 

W.  —  "  What  was  he  hoeing  }  Was  he  hoeing  corn,  or 
hoeing  out  some  potatoes  for  his  dinner.?" 

B.  —  "  He  was  hoeing  ;  that  is  enough." 

At  this  point  the  Justice  of  the  Peace  interfered  :  — 

"It  seems,  Mr.  Wood,  that  you  are  trying  to  make  it 
appear  that  Mr.  Armstrong  was  only  digging  a  mess  of 
potatoes  for  his  dinner.  If  that  is  so,  and  he  was  doing 
a  work  of  comfort,  necessity,  or  charity,  he  can  prove  it." 

VV.  —  "If  your  honor  please,  Mr.  Armstrong  is  not 
here  to  prove  a  negative.  The  law  allows  him  to  do  such 
work  as  is  of  necessity,  comfort,  or  charity  ;  and  until  it 
is  clearly  proven  that  he  has  violated  this  law,  which  thus 
far  has  not  been  proven,  it  is  unnecessary  for  him  to  offer 
proof.     A  man  stands  innocent  until  he  is  proven  guilty." 


THE    WORKINGS    OF    A    SUNDAY    LAW.  131 

Justice.  —  "  We  proceed." 

W.  —  ''Mr.  Bowman,  you  say  you  were  in  the  road 
when  you  sawMr.  Armstrong.'*" 

^.— ''Yes." 

W.  — "  Do  you  remember  whether  there  was  a  fence 
between  you  and  Mr.  Armstrong  .■*  " 

^.  — "Yes;  there  was." 

J>F.  —  "  About  what  is  the  hight  of  that  fence.?" 

^.  — "Don't  know." 

W.  —  "  Was  it  a  board  fence  five  boards  high  }  " 

^.  — "Can't  say." 

VV.  —  "  Was  there  a  second  fence  between  the  road  and 
the  garden,  beyond  the  house  and  lot  ?" 

j5.  —  "  I  think  there  was." 

W.  —  "  Was  that  second  fence  a  board  fence  or  a  very 
high  picket  fence  }  " 

B.  —  "I  don't  know,  nor  don't  care.  It  makes  no 
difference." 

W.  —  "I  understand,  then,  that  you  do  n't  know.  Well, 
Mr.  Bowman,  what  time  in  the  day  did  you  see  Mr.  Arm- 
strong in  the  garden  V 

B.  —  "  In  the  afternoon." 

W.  —  "About  what  time  in  the  afternoon,  —  was  it  one 
or  two  o'clock,  or  later  }  " 

B.  —  "  It  makes  no  difference.  I  am  not  here  to  be 
pumped.  If  you  want  to  pump  me  any  more,  just  come 
out  on  the  street  with  me." 

W.  — "  Sir,  I  have  no  desire  to  pump  anything  but 
truth  from  you,  and  only  wish  to  know  the  facts  in  this 
case.  Was  it  about  one  or  two  o'clock  in  the  afternoon, 
or  about  four  or  five  }  Please  tell  us  about  the  time  of 
day." 

B.  —  "  It  was  between  twelve  noon  and  sunset.  That 
is  near  enough." 

This  closed  the  testimony  in  the  case.  Mr.  Armstrong 
was  declared  guilty,  and  fined  one  dollar  and  costs,  the. 
whole  amounting  to  $4.65.  In  default  of  the  payment  of 
his  fine,  the  mayor,  acting  as  Justice  of  the  Peace,  told 
him  he  would  send  him  to  the  county  jail,  and  allow  him 
a  dollar  a  day  until  the  fine  and  costs  were  paid. 


132  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

The  marshal  went  at  once  to  the  livery-stable  to  get  a 
rig,  and  within  four  hours  from  the  time  of  his  arrest,  Mr. 
Armstrong,  in  charge  of  the  marshal,  was  on  his  way  to  jail 
at  Fayetteville.  He  was  locked  up  with  another  prisoner, 
with  nothing  but  a  little  straw,  and  a  dirty  blanket  about 
thirty  inches  wide,  for  a  bed  for  both.  TJie  next  night,  he 
was  allowed  to  lie  in  the  corridor  on  the  brick  floor,  with 
his  alpaca  coat  for  a  bed,  and  his  Bible  for  a  pillow.  The 
third  night,  a  friend  in  town  furnished  him  a  quilt  and  a 
pillow.  On  the  fourth  night,  his  friend  brought  him 
another  quilt,  and  thus  he  was  made  quite  comfortable 
On  the  fifth  day,  at  noon,  he  was  released. 

When  Mr.  Armstrong  returned  to  Springdale,  the 
mayor  notified  him  that  his  fine  and  costs  were  not 
satisfied,  and  that  unless  they  were  paid  in  ten  days,  an 
execution  would  be  issued,  and  his  property  sold.  Mr. 
Armstrong  filed  an  appeal  to  the  Circuit  Court,  and  the 
appeal  was  sustained,  and  he  was  released  from  further 
penalty. 

EIGHTEENTH    CASE. 
y.  L.  Munsoih  Star  of  the  West,  Ark. 

Mr.  Munson,  a  Seventh-day  Adventist,  was  indicted 
by  the  Grand  Jury  at  the  July  term  of  the  Circuit  Court 
of  1886,  for  working  on  a  Sunday  in  March,  1886.  Mr. 
Munson  was  cutting  briars  out  of  his  fence  corner  at  the 
back  of  his  field,  one  fourth  of  a  mile  from  any  public 
road,  and  one  and  one  half  miles  from  any  place  of  public 
worship.  He  was  indicted  on  the  voluntary  evidence  of 
Jeff.  O'Neal,  a  Free-will  Baptist  preacher.  He  was  ar- 
rested Nov.  3,  1886,  and  held  under  bonds  of  $300  for  his 
appearance  January,  1887.  He  confessed  judgment,  and 
Judge  Heme  assessed  the  legal  fine  of  one  dollar,  with 
three  dollars  county  tax,  and  costs,  amounting  to  $14.20. 
This  was  paid  by  Mr.  Munson,  and  he  was  released. 


THE   WORKINGS    OF   A    SUNDAY   LAW.  133 

NINETEENTH    CASE. 

James  M.  Pool,  the  second  time. 

Mr.  Pool  was  indicted  the  second  time  at  the  Sep- 
tember term  of  Court  in  1886,  and  was  held  under 
bonds  of  $250  for  his  appearance  May  16,  1887.  The  act 
under  which  these  prosecutions  were  conducted,  w^as 
repealed  before  the  date  of  trial.  Pool  was  tried  under 
the  indictment,  and  fined  one  dollar  and  costs,  amounting 
to  $28.40. 

TWENTIETH    CASE. 
y.  L.  Shoe  key,  the  second  time 

In  August,  1886,  Mr.  P.  Hammond,  a  member  of  the 
Baptist  Church,  appeared  before  the  Grand  Jury  in  Hot 
Springs  County,  and  charged  J.  L.  Shockey  with  hauling 
rails  and  clearing  land  on  Sunday,  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  July  11,  1886.  The  Grand  Jury  presented  an  in- 
dictment. On  Dec.  14,  1886,  Mr.  Shockey  was  arrested 
and  taken  to  Malvern,  locked  up  until  the  next  day,  when 
he  gave  the  usual  bond  for  his  appearance  at  Court,  and 
was  released.  The  work  for  which  Mr.  Shockey  was  in- 
dicted, was  done  on  a  new  farm  which  he  was  opening  up 
in  the  woods,  three  fourths  of  a  mile  from  any  public  road, 
and  more  than  a  mile  from  any  place  of  public  worship, 
and  not  in  sight  of  either.  The  witness,  Mr.  Hammond, 
passed  by  where  Mr.  Shockey  was  at  work,  and  after  he 
had  gone  some  distance,  returned,  and  spoke  to  Mr. 
Shockey  about  buying  from  him  a  Plymouth  Rock  rooster. 
The  bargain  was  then  made,  Hammond  agreeing  to  pay 
Shockey  fifty  cents  for  the  rooster. 

Shockey  was  indicted,  and  his  case  set  for  trial  Feb. 
7,  1887.  This  case,  with  the  one  before  mentioned  and 
some  others  that  had  been  held  over  to  await  the  decision 
in  the  Scoles  case,  was  called,  and  February  11  fixed  as 
the  day  of  trial  for  all. 


134  CIVIL   GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

In  the  meantime,  Eld.  Dan.  T.  Jones,  president  of  the 
Missouri  Conference  of  Seventh-day  Adventists,  had  an 
interview  with  the  prosecuting  attorney,  Mr.  J.  P.  Hen- 
derson, and  explained  the  nature  of  all  these  cases,  and 
showed  him  that  the  Adventists  were  faithful,  law-abid- 
ing citizens  in  every  respect,  except  in  this  matter  of 
working  on  Sunday  ;  that  the  defendants  in  the  cases 
were  all  poor  men,  some  of  whom  were  utterly  unable  to 
pay  any  fines  and  costs,  and  consequently  would  have  to 
go  to  jail ;  and  asked  Mr.  Henderson  if  he  would  be  will- 
ing to  remit  a  portion  of  his  fees,  which  were  ten  dollars 
in  each  case,  provided  the  remainder  was  raised  by  do- 
nations by  the  Seventh-day  Adventists  throughout  the 
country,  for  the  relief  of  their  brethren  in  Arkansas. 

Mr.  Henderson  replied  that  if  these  cases  were  of  the 
nature  of  religious  persecution,  he  would  not  feel  justified 
in  taking  any  fees.  He  said  he  would  not  be  a  party  to 
any  such  action,  but  would  want  some  time  to  investigate 
the  cases,  to  satisfy  himself  that  this  was  true.  Upon  in- 
vestigation, he  became  fully  satisfied  that  the  prosecutions 
were  simply  of  the  nature  of  religious  persecutions,  and 
generously  refused  to  take  any  fees  in  any  of  the  cases. 

When  the  cases  were  called,  the  defendants  confessed 
judgment,  and  the  fine  prescribed  by  law  was  assessed. 
The  county  clerk  reduced  his  fees  about  one  half;  the 
sheriff,  one  half  of  his  ;  and  the  prosecuting  attorney,  all 
of  his,  which  reduced  the  total  expenses  about  one  half. 
The  remainder  was  advanced  from  funds  supplied  by 
Seventh-day  Adventists  throughout  the  country,  for  the 
relief  of  their  brethren  in  Arkansas. 

•      TWENTY-FIRST   CASE. 
Alexander  Holt,  Magnet  Cove,  Ark. 
Mr.  Holt,  a  Seventh-day  Adventist,  was  a  medical  stu- 
dent of  the  Memphis  Hospital  and  Medical  College,  Mem- 
phis, Tenn. 


THE    WORKINGS    OF    A    SUNDAY    LAW.  135 

In  1885  he  was  working  on  a  farm  in  the  northern  part 
of  Hot  Spring  Co.,  Ark.  At  the  February  term  of  the 
Circuit  Court  in  1886,  he  was  indicted  for  Sabbath-break- 
ing. The  particular  charge  was  working  on  Sunday,  Oct. 
11,  1885. 

C.  C.  Kaufman  was  the  informer.  Mr.  Holt  had  worked 
one  Sunday  near  a  public  road,  but  not  nearer  than  a  mile 
to  any  place  of  public  worship.  Hearing  that  there  had 
been  an  indictment  found  against  him,  Mr.  Holt  did  not 
wait  for  the  sheriff  to  come  for  his  arrest,  but  went  to  the 
county  seat,  ten  miles  distant,  taking  a  bondsman  with 
him,  and  inquired  of  the  proper  officer  if  there  was  an 
indictment  against  him.  The  warrant  for  his  arrest  was  then 
read  to  him  by  the  deputy-sheriff  Holt  gave  bonds  to 
appear  at  the  August  term  of  the  Circuit  Court,  and  was 
released. 

At  the  August  term  of  Court,  the  case  was  laid  over  to 
await  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Scoles 
case.  February,  1887,  Holt's  case  was  called  for  trial  at 
Malvern.  The  Supreme  Court  having  decided  adversely. 
Holt  confessed  judgment,  and  paid  the  fine  and  costs, 
amounting  to  $28. 

There  were  a  number  of  other  cases,  but  they  are  all 
of  the  same  kind, —  causeless  arrests  upon  information 
treacherously  obtained  to  vent  religious  spite. 

In  January,  1887,  a  bill  was  introduced  by  Senator 
R.  H.  Crockett,  restoring  the  protective  clause  to  observ- 
ers of  the  seventh  day.  But  two  men  voted  against  the 
bill  in  the  Senate,  and  both  these  were  preachers.  One 
of  them,  a  member  from  Pike  County,  was  acquainted 
with  many  who  observed  the  seventh  day,  several  of 
whom  were  af  that  time  under  bonds.  In  private  conver- 
sation, he  confessed  that  they  were  all  excellent  people 
and  law-abiding  citizens.  When  the  vote  was  taken  by 
roll-call,  he  asked  to  explain  his  vote,  and  the  following 
note  of  explanation  was  sent  to  the  clerk  :  — 


136  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

*'  Mr.  President  :  I  desire  to  explain  my  vote.  Be- 
lieving as  I  do  that  the  Christian  Sabbath  should  be  ob- 
served as  a  day  of  worship,  losing  sight  of  this  is  to  im- 
pede the  progress  of  Christianity.  J.  P.  COPELAND." 

The  vote  was  a  verbal  and  emphatic  "  No." 

The  restoration  of  this  protective  section  was  strenu- 
ously opposed  by  the  religious  leaders.  The  editor  of  the 
Arkansas  Methodist  declared  in  his  paper  at  the  time,  that 
''the  Sabbath  laws"  as  they  were,  without  the  protective 
section,  had' "worked  well  enough,"  and  Avere  "about  as 
near  perfect  as  we  can  expect  to  get  them,  under  the 
present  Constitution." 

There  are  some  points  in  these  cases  that  deserve  a 
word  of  comment :  — 

First,  with  two  exceptions,  all  the  arrests  and  prosecu- 
tions were  of  people  who  observed  the  seventh  day  of  the 
week  as  the  Sabbath.  And  in  these  two  exceptions,  those 
who  were  held  for  trial  were  held  without  bail,  —  simply  on 
their  own  recognizance,-^- and  the  cases  both  dismissed  ; 
while  in  every  case  of  a  Seventh-day  Adventist,  the  least 
bail  that  was  accepted  was  $110  ;  the  most  of  them  were 
held  under  bonds  for  $250,  and  some  for  as  high  as  $500. 
There  was  not  a  single  case  dismissed,  and  in  all  the  cases 
there  never  was  a  complaint  made  of  that  which  was 
done  having  disturbed  the  worship  or  the  rest  of  any  one. 
But  the  indictments  were  all  for  the  crime  of  "  Sabbath- 
breaking  "  by  the  performance  of  labor  on  Sunday.  If 
there  had  been  arrests  of  other  people  for  working 
on  Sunday,  in  anything  like  the  numbers  that  there 
were  of  seventh-day  observers,  and  the  law  had  been 
enforced  upon  all  alike,  then  the  iniquity  would  not  have 
been  so  apparent  ;  or  if  those  who  were  not  seventh-day 
observers,  and  who  were  arrested,  had  been  convicted, 
even  then  the  case  would  not  have  been  so  clearly  one 
of  persecution.     But  when  in  all  the  record  of  the  whole 


THE    WORKINGS    OF    A    SUNDAY    LAW.  137 

two  years'  existence  of  the  law  in  this  form,  there  was  not 
a  solitary  saloon-keeper  arrested,  there  was  not  a  person 
who  did  not  observe  the  seventh  day  arrested,  with  the 
two  exceptions  named,  then  there  could  be  no  clearer 
demonstration  that  the  law  was  used  only  as  a  means  to 
vent  religious  spite  against  a  class  of  citizens  guiltless  of 
any  crime,  but  only  of  professing  a  religion  different  from 
that  of  the  majority.  Nothing  could  be  more  clearly 
demonstrated  than  is  this  :  that  the  only  effect  of  the 
repeal  of  that  exemption  clause  was  to  give  power  to  a 
set  of  bigots  to  oppress  those  whose  religion  they  hated. 
If  anything  was  needed  to  make  the  demonstration  more 
clear,  it  is  found  in  the  method  of  the  prosecutions. 

Mr.  Swearingen  was  convicted  upon  the  testimony  of  a 
witness  who  swore  that  the  work  for  which  he  was  con- 
victed was  done  on  a  day  which  proved  to  be  seventeen  days 
before  the  law  was  enacted^  thus  by  its  enforcement  mak- 
ing the  law  ex  post  facto.  The  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  forbids  the  making  of  ex  post  facto  laws.  But 
when  a  law  not  being  ex  post  facto  in  itself,  is  made  so  by 
its  enforcement,  it  is  time  that  something  was  being  done 
to  enlighten  courts  and  juries  upon  that  subject,  even 
though  it  should  be  by  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  providing  that  no  law  not  being  ex 
post  facto  in  itself  shall  be  made  so  by  its  enforcement. 
Then,  on  the  other  hand,  several  cases  were  tried  and  the 
men  convicted  and  fined  after  the  law  was  repealed^  but 
for  work  done  before. 

Second,  in  almost  every  case  the  informer  or  the  pros- 
ecuting witness,  or  perhaps  both,  was  a  man  who  was 
doing  work  or  business  on  the  same  day,  and  sometimes 
with  the  very  persons  accused  ;  yet  the  man  who  kept 
the  seventh  day  was  convicted  in  every  instance,  while 
the  man  who  did  not  keep  the  seventh  day,  but  did 
work  or  business  with  the  man  who  was  prosecuted,  was 


138  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION.' 

left  entirely  unmolested,  and  his  evidence  was  accepted  in 
Court  to  convict  the  other  man.  For  instance,  Millard 
Courtney,  the  one  who  was  the  prosecuting  witness 
against  both  Armstrong  and  Elmore,  took  a  man  with 
him  to  where  these  men  were  working,  and  there  made  a 
contract  for  roofing  a  school-house  ;  and  yet  this  man's 
evidence  convicted  these  two  men  of  Sabbath-breaking  at 
the  very  time  at  which  he  was  doing  business  with  them. 

Third,  J.  L.  Shockey  was  convicted  of  Sabbath-break- 
ing upon  the  testimony  of  Hammond,  who  went  where  he 
was  at  work,  and  bought  of  him  a  Plymouth  Rock  rooster. 

Fourth,  J.  L.  James,  who  worked  in  the  rain  for  noth- 
ing, that  a  poor  widow  might  be  sheltered,  v/as  convicted 
of  Sabbath-breaking  upon  the  evidence  of  a  man  who  car- 
ried wood  and  chopped  it  up  within  seven  rods  of  the  man 
who  was  convicted  by  his  testimony. 

Fifth,  La  Fever  and  his  wife  went  to  Allen  Meeks's 
house  on  Sunday  to  visit.  They  found  Meeks  planting 
potatoes.  Meeks  stopped  planting  potatoes,  and  spent 
the  rest  of  the  day  visiting  with  them  ;  and  yet  Meeks 
was  convicted  and  fined  upon  the  evidence  of  La  Fever. 

Sixth,  the  second  case  of  this  same  Meeks.  Riley 
Warren  went  to  his  house  on  Sunday,  to  see  him  about 
hiring  a  teacher  for  the  public  school.  In  the  social, 
neighborly  conversation  that  passed  between  them,  Meeks 
incidentally  mentioned  that  he  had  mended  his  wagon- 
brake  that  morning  ;  and  yet  he  was  convicted  of  Sab- 
bath-breaking by  the  evidence  of  that  same  Riley  Warren. 
And  further,  Meeks  was  thus  virtually  compelled  to  be  a 
witness  against  himself,  —  clearly  another  violation  of  both 
the  State  and  the  United  States  Constitution. 

Seventh,  Mr.  Reeves's  boys  were  hauling  wood  on  Sun- 
day. In  the  timber  where  they  got  the  wood,  they  met 
another  boy,  John  A.  Meeks,  hunting  squirrels.  They 
joined    him     in    the    hunt,    scaring  the    squirrels    around 


THE    WORKINGS    OF    A    SUNDAY    LAW.  13^ 

the  trees  so  he  could  shoot  them.  Then  the  squirrels 
were  divided  between  the  Meeks  boy  and  the  Reeves 
boys.  Then  the  Meeks  boy  was  indicted,  prosecuted,  and 
convicted  of  Sabbath-breaking  upon  the  evidence  of  the 
father  of  those  boys  who  were  hauling  wood,  and  who 
helped  to  kill  the  squirrels. 

Eighth,  James  M.  Pool,  for  hoeing  in  his  garden  on 
Sunday,  was  convicted  of  Sabbath-breaking,  on  the  evi- 
dence of  a  **  sanctified  "  church-member  who  had  gone  to 
Pool's  house  on  Sunday  to  buy  tobacco. 

Thus  throughout  this  whole  list  of  cases,  people  who 
were  performing  honest  labor  on  their  own  premises  in  a 
way  in  which  it  was  impossible  to  do  harm  to  any  soul  on 
earth,  were  indicted,  prosecuted,  and  convicted  upon  the 
evidence  of  men  who,  if  there  were  any  wrong  involved 
in  the  case  at  all,  were  more  guilty  than  they.  If  relig- 
ious persecution  could  possibly  be  more  clearly  demon- 
strated than  it  is  in  this  thing,  we  hope  never  to  see  an 
illustration  of  it. 

Yet  further  :  Take  the  methods  of  prosecution.  In  the 
case  of  Scoles,  J.  A.  Armstrong  was  called  before  the 
Grand  Jury.  After  repeated  answers  to  questions  in 
regard  to  Sunday  work  by  different  parties  in  several 
different  lines  of  business  and  traffic,  he  was  asked  the 
direct  question  whether  he  knew  of  any  Seventh-day  Ad- 
ventists  who  worked  on  Sunday,  and  when  in  the  nature 
of  the  case  he  answered  in  the  affirmative,  every  one  of 
the  Seventh-day  Adventists  whom  he  named  was  indicted, 
and  not  one  of  any  other  class  dr  trade.  And  in  the  second 
case  of  James  A.  Armstrong  ;  although,  when  asked  for 
the  affidavit  upon  which  Armstrong  was  arrested,  the 
mayor  said  that  A.  J.  Vaughn  had  called  his  attention  to 
Armstrong's  working,  and  had  said,  "  Now  see  that  you 
do  your  duty,"  yet  Vaughn  testified  under  oath  that  he 
did    not    see    Armstrong  at  all    on    the    day  referred    to. 


140  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

Armstrong  was  arrested  at  the  instance  of  the  mayor,  and 
tried  before  the  mayor,  who  acted  as  Justice  of  the  Peace. 
This  made  the  mayor,  virtually,  both  prosecuting  witness 
and  judge  ;  and  the  questions  which  he  asked  show  that 
that  was  precisely  his  position,  and  his  own  view  of  the 
case.  The  question  which  he  asked  to  each  of  the  first 
two  witnesses  was,  "  What  do  you  know  about  Mr.  Arm- 
strong's working  on  Sunday,  June  27?"  This  question 
assumes  all  that  was  expected  to  be  proved  on  the  trial. 
And  then  when  the  only  witness  whose  word  seemed  to 
confirm  the  judge's  view  of  the  case,  was  cross-questioned, 
the  judge  came  to  the  rescue  with  the  excellent  piece  of 
legal  wisdom,  to  the  effect  that  if  the  prisoner  was  inno- 
cent, he  could  prove  it. 

Nor  did  the  unjust  proceeding  stop  here.  The  Su- 
preme Court  confirmed  the  convictions  secured  by  these 
iniquitous  proceedings,  and  they  confirmed  it  under  a 
Constitution  which  declares,  — 

'*  All  men  have  a  natural  and  indefeasible  right  to 
worship  Almighty  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  their 
own  consciences  ;  no  man  can  of  right  be  compelled  to 
atten4,  erect,  or  support  any  place  of  worship,  or  to 
maintain  any  ministry  against  his  consent.  No  human 
authority  can,  in  any  case  or  manner  whatsoever,  control 
or  interfere  with  the  right  of  conscience  ;  and  no  pref- 
erence shall  ever  be  given  by  law  to  any  religious  estab- 
lishment, denomination,  or  mode  of  worship,  above  any 
other." 

The  concluding  portion  of  the  decision  reads  as  fol- 
lows :  — 

"The  appellant's  argument,  then,  is  reduced  to  this: 
That  because  he  conscientiously  believes  he  is  permitted 
by  the  law  of  God  to  labor  on  Sunday,  he  may  violate 
with  impunity  the  statute  declaring  it  illegal  to  do  so  ; 
but  a  man's  religious  belief  cannot  be  accepted  as  a 
justification  for  his  committing  an  overt  act  made  crim- 
inal by  the  law  of  the  land.     If  the  law  operates  harshly. 


THE   WORKINGS    OF   A    SUNDAY   LAW.  141 

as  laws  sometimes  do,  the  remedy  is  in  the  hands  of  the 
legislature.  It  is  not  the  province  of  the  judiciary  to 
pass  upon  the  wisdom  or  policy  of  legislation.  That  is 
for  the  members  of  the  legislative  department  ;  and  the 
only  appeal  from  their  determination  is  to  the  constit- 
uency." 

This  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  is  of  the  same  piece 
with  the  prosecutions  and  judicial  processes  throughout. 
It  gives  to  the  legislature  all  the  omnipotence  of  the 
British  Parliament,  and  in  that  does  away  with  all  neces- 
sity for  a  Constitution.  The  decision  on  this  principle 
alone  is  un-American.  No  legislative  power  in  this  coun- 
try is  framed  upon  the  model  of  the  British  Parliament  in 
respect  to  power.  In  this  country,  the  powers  of  every 
legislature  are  defined  and  limited  by  Constitutions.  It 
is  the  prerogative  of  Supreme  Courts  to  define  the  mean- 
ing of  the  Constitution,  and  to  decide  whether  an  act  of 
the  legislature  is  Constitutional  or  not.  If  the  act  is 
Constitutional,  then  it  must  stand,  whatever  the  results 
may  be.  And  the  Supreme  Court  is  the  body  by  which 
the  Constitutionality  or  the  unconstitutionality  of  any 
statute  is  to  be  discovered.  But  if,  as  this  decision 
declares,  the  legislature  is  omnipotent,  and  that  w^hich 
it  does  must  stand  as  law,  then  there  is  no  use  for  a  Con- 
stitution, "  One  of  the  objects  for  which  the  judiciary 
department  is  established,  is  the  protection  of  the  Con- 
stitutional rights  of  the  citizens." 

So  long  as  there  is  a  Constitution  above  the  legisla- 
ture, which  defines  and  limits  its  powers,  and  protects  and 
guards  the  rights  of  the  citizens,  so  long  it  is  the  province 
of  the  Supreme  Court  to  pronounce  upon  the  acts  of  the 
legislature.  The  Supreme  Court  of  Arkansas,  therefore, 
in  this  case,  clearly  abdicated  one  of  the  very  functions 
for  which  it  was  created,  or  else  subverted  the  Constitu- 
tion of  Arkansas  ;  and  in  either  case,  bestowed  upon  the 
legislature    the    omnipotence    of  the    British    Parliament, 


142  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

which  is  contrary  to  every  principle  of  American  institu- 
tions. Nor  is  the  State  of  Arkansas  an  exception  in  this 
case,  for  this  is  the  usual  procedure  of  Supreme  Courts 
in  sustaining  Sunday  laws.  They  cannot  be  sustained 
upon  any  American  principle  ;  resort  has  to  be  made  in 
every  instance,  and  has  been  with  scarcely  an  exception, 
either  to  the  church-and-State  principles  of  the  British 
Government,  or  to  the  British  principle  of  the  omnipo- 
tence of  the  legislative  power.  But  American  principles 
are  far  above  and  far  in  advance  of  the  principles  of  the 
British  Government,  in  that  they  recognize  Constitutional 
limitations  upon  the  legislative  power,  and  countenance 
no  union  of  church  and  State  ;  consequently,  Sunday  laws 
never  have  been,  and  never  can  be,  sustained  upon  Ameri- 
can principles. 

That  this  indictment  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Arkansas 
is  not  unjust,  we  have  the  clearest  proof.  The  three  judges 
who  then  composed  the  Supreme  Court,  were  all  members 
of  the  Bar  Association  of  the  State  of  Arkansas.  In  less 
than  three  months  after  this  decision  was  rendered,  the 
Bar  Association  unanimously  made  a  report  to  the  State 
on  "  law  and  law  reform,"  an  official  copy  of  which  we  have 
in  our  possession.  In  that  report,  under  the  heading 
**  Sunday  Laws,"  is  the  following  :  — 

''  Oiir  statute  as  it  stands  in  Mansfield's  Digest,  pro- 
vides that  '  persons  who  are  members  of  any  religious  so- 
ciety who  observe  as  Sabbath  any  other  day  of  the  week 
than  the  Christian  Sabbath,  or  Sunday,  shall  not  be  sub- 
ject to  the  penalties  of  this  act  (the  Sunday  law),  so  that 
they  observe  one  day  in  seven,  agreeably  to  the  faith  and 
practice  of  their  church  or  society.'  —  Mans.  Dig.,  sec. 
1886. 

''This  statute  had  been  in  force  from  the  time  of  the 
organization  of  the  State  government  ;  but  it  was  unfort- 
unately repealed  by  act  of  March  3,  1885. — Acts  i88$, 
p.  37. 


THE   WORKINGS    OF   A    SUNDAY    LAW.  143 

**  While  the  Jews  adhere,  of  course,  to  the  letter  of  the 
original  command  to  remember  the  seventh  day  of  the 
week,  there  is  also  in  the  State  a  small  but  respectable 
body  of  Christians  who  consistently  believe  that  the  sev- 
enth day  is  the  proper  day  to  be  kept  sacred  ;  and  in  the 
case  of  Scoles  vs.  State,  our  Supreme  Court  was  compelled 
to  affirm  a  judgment  against  a  member  of  one  of  these 
churches,  for  worshiping  God  according  to  the  dictates 
of  his  own  conscience,  supported,  as  he  supposed,  by  good 
theological  arguments.  It  is  very  evident  that  the  sys- 
tem now  in  force,  savoring  as  it  does  very  much  of  relig- 
ious persecution,  is  a  relic  of  the  Middle  Ages,  when  it 
was  thought  that  men  could  be  made  orthodox  by  an  act 
of  parliament.  Even  in  Massachusetts,  where  Sabbatar- 
ian laws  have  always  been  enforced  with  unusual  vigor, 
exceptions  are  made  in  favor  of  persons  who  religiously 
observe  any  other  day  in  the  place  of  Sunday.  We  think 
that  the  law  as  it  stood  in  Mansfield's  Digest,  should  be  re- 
stored, with  such  an  amendment  as  would  prevent  the 
sale  of  spirits  on  Sunday,  as  that  was  probably  the  object 
of  repealing  the  above  section." 

Now  the  Arkansas  Constitution  says,  *'  All  men  have  a 
natural  and  indefeasible  right  to  worship  Almighty  God 
according  to  the  dictates  of  their  own  consciences."  This 
report  of  the  Bar  Association  says,  '*  in  the  case  of  Scoles 
vs.  State,  our  Supreme  Court  was  compelled  to  affirm  a 
judgment  against  a  member  of  one  of  these  churches,  for 
worshiping  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  con- 
science." 

The  members  of  the  Supreme  Court  being  members  of 
the  Bar  Association,  in  that  repQrt  it  is  confessed  that 
they  confirmed  a  judgment  against  a  man  for  doing  that 
which  the  Constitution  explicitly  declares  all  men  have  a 
natural  and  indefeasible  right  to  do.  By  this,  therefore, 
it  is  demonstrated  that  the  men  who  composed  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  Arkansas  in  1885,  plainly  ignored  the  first 
principles  of  Constitutional  law,  as  well  as  the  express  pro- 
visions of  the  Constitution  they  were  sworn  to  uphold. 


144  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

Just  one  more  consideration,  and  we  are  done  for  this 
time.  The  form  of  indictment  in  all  these  cases,  was 
the  same  as  that  printed  on  page  115. 

Thus  the  State  of  Arkansas  declared  that  for  a  man  to 
work  quietly  and  peaceably  on  his  own  premises  on  Sun- 
day, digging  potatoes,  picking  peaches,  plowing,  etc.,  is 
against  the  peace  and  dignity  of  the  State  of  Arkansas. 
This  relegates  honest  occupations  to  the  realm  of  crime, 
peaceable  employment  to  the  realm  of  disorder,  and 
puts  a  premium  upon  idleness  and  recklessness.  When 
any  State  or  body  of  people  declares  it  to  be  against 
the  dignity  of  that  State  or  people  for  a  man  to  follow 
any  honest  occupation  on  his  own  premises  on  any  day, 
then  we  think  the  less  dignity  of  that  kind  possessed,  the 
better  it  will  be  for  all  concerned.  And  when  such  things 
are  considered  as  offenses  against  the  peace  of  any  State 
or  community,  that  State  or  community  must  be  com- 
posed of  most  exceedingly  irritable  people. 

The  fact  of  the  matter  is,  —  and  the  whole  history  of 
these  proceedings  proves  it,  ^ — from  beginning  to  end  these 
prosecutions  were  only  the  manifestation  of  that  persecut- 
ing, intolerant  spirit  that  will  always  make  itself  felt  when 
any  class  of  religionists  can  control  the  civil  power.  The 
information  upon  which  the  indictments  were  found,  was' 
treacherously  given,  and  in  the  very  spirit  of  the  Inquisi- 
tion. The  indictment  itself  is  a  travesty  of  legal  form,  and 
a  libel  upon  justice.  The  principle  was  more  worthy  of 
the  Dark  Ages  than  of  any  civilized  nation  or  modern 
time  ;  and  the  Supreme  Court  decision  that  confirmed 
the  convictions,  rendered  by  judges  who  stultified  them- 
selves within  three  months,  is  one  which,  as  we  have 
shown,  is  contrary  to  the  first  principles  of  Constitutional 
law  or  Constitutional  compacts.  Nor  is  it  certain  that 
Arkansas  was  worse  in  these  respects  than  any  other 
State  would  be  under  like  circumstances.     Religious  big- 


THE    WORKINGS    OF    A    SUNDAY    LAW.  145 

ots  in  Arkansas  are  no  worse  than  they  would  be  in  any- 
other  State;  and  if  Congress  should  lend  its  sanction  to 
religious  legislation  to  the  extent  of  passing  any  such  law 
as  the  Blair  Sunday  bill  embodies,  and  then  its  principles 
should  be  made  of  force  in  all  the  States,  the  history  of 
Arkansas  from  1885  to  1887  would  be  repeated  through- 
out the  whole  extent  of  the  nation. 

In  none  of  th.ese  cases  have  we  given  names  with  the  in- 
tent of  casting  reflection  upon  any  persons,  except  the  *'  in- 
formers," but  only  that  those  who  read  the  account  may 
have  opportunity  to  verify  the  facts,  if  they  choose.  But  in 
the  matter  of  the  Supreme  Court,  our  discussion  of  that  de- 
cision is  an  intentional  stricture,  for  the  reasons  given.  Yet 
we  do  not  mean  by  so  doing,  to  place  the  judges  mentioned 
in  any  more  unenviable  light  than  that  in  which  the  Su- 
preme Courts  of  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  and  other 
States  stand.  The  principles  of  their  decision  have  their 
precedent  in  the  decisions  of  these  other  States,  and  were 
embodied  in  a  dissenting  opinion  of  one  man  who  is  now 
an  Associate-Justice  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court, 
given  when  he  was  a  member  of  a  State  Supreme  Court. 
April  10,  1858,  the  legislature  of  California  passed 
"An  act  to  provide  for  the  better  observance  of  the  Sab- 
bath." The  Constitution  of  California  declares  that  ''  the 
free  exercise  and  enjoyment  of  religious  profession  and 
worship,  without  discrimination  or  preference,  shall  for- 
ever be  allowed  in  this  State."  A  Jew  by  the  name  of 
Newman  was  convicted  of  selling  goods  on  Sunday  in 
Sacramento.  Upon  his  imprisonment,  his  case  was 
brought  before  the  Supreme  Court  on  a  writ  of  habeas 
corpus^  on  the  ground  of  the  illegality  of  his  imprisonment, 
because  of  the  act's  being  unconstitutional.  The  majority 
of  the  Supreme  Court, — Judge  Terry  and  Judge  Burnett, — 
sustained  the  plea  by  decisions  separately  written,  whose 
soundness,  both  upon  Constitutional  principles  and  upon 

10 


146  CIVIL   GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

the  abstract  principle  of  justice  itself,  can  never  be  suc- 
cessfully controverted.  Stephen  J.  Field,  who  is  now  As- 
sociate-Justice of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
was  then  the  third  member  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Cal- 
ifornia. He  rendered  a  dissenting  opinion,  taking  the 
identical  position  of  the  Arkansas  Supreme  Court  as  to 
the  omnipotence  of  the  legislature,  and  soberly  maintain- 
ing that  the  term  **  Christian  Sabbath,"  used  in  the  act, 
was  not  a  discrimination  or  preference  in  favor  of  any  re- 
ligious profession  or  worship. 

The  principles  of  this  dissenting  opinion,  as  of  the 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Arkansas,  are  wholly 
wrong,  and  spring  from  the  principles  of  church  and  State, 
and  of  the  supremacy  of  the  parliament  of  the  British  Gov- 
ernment, and  are  totally  subversive  of  American  principles. 

Yet,  we  repeat,  Sunday  laws  have  never  been,  and 
never  can  be,  sustained  on  any  other  principles  ;  which  is 
only  to  say  :  There  is  no  foundation  in  justice  or  in  right 
for  any  Sunday  laws,  or  Sabbath  laws,  or  Lord's  day  laws, 
under  any  government  on  this  earth. 

CONGRESSIONAL  REPORT  —  TRANSPORTATION  OF 
THE  MAIL  ON  THE  SABBATH. 

As  a  fitting  close  to  our  discussion  of  this  subject,  we 
insert  a  portion  of  the  report  of  a  United  States  Senate 
committee  on  the  same  subject,  sixty  years  ago  —  session 
of  1828-29.  The  arguments  are  unanswerable  ;  and  the 
principles  stated  are  just  now  worthy  of  the  most  earnest 
consideration  of  every  American  citizen  :  — 

'*  The  Senate  proceeded  to  the  consideration  of  the 
following  report  and  resolution,  presented  by  Mr.  John- 
son, with  which  the  Senate  concurred  :  — 

*'*The  committee  to  whom  were  referred  the  several 
petitions  on  the  subject  of  mails  on  the  Sabbath,  or  first 
day  of  the  week,  report, — 


THE   WORKINGS    OF   A    SUNDAY    LAW.  147 

'' '  That  some  respite  is  required  from  the  ordinary- 
vocations  of  life,  is  an  established  principle,  sanctioned 
by  the  usages  of  all  nations,  whether  Christian  or  pagan. 
One  day  in  seven  has  also  been  determined  upon  as  the 
proportion  of  time  ;  and  in  conformity  with  the  wishes  of 
a  great  majority  of  the  citizens  of  this  country,  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  commonly  called  Sunday,  has  been  set 
apart  to  that  object.  The  principle  has  received  the 
sanction  of  the  national  legislature,  so  far  as  to  admit  a 
suspension  of  all  public  business  on  that  day,  except  in 
cases  of  absolute  necessity,  or  of  great  public  utility. 
This  principle  the  committee  would  not  wish  to  disturb. 
If  kept  within  its  legitimate  sphere  of  action,  no  injury 
can  result  from  its  observance.  It  should,  however,  be 
kept  in  mind  that  the  proper  object  of  goverfiment  is  to 
protect  all  persons  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  religious  as 
well  as  civil  rights,  and  not  to  determine  for  any  whether 
they  shall  esteem  one  day  above  another,  or  esteem  all  days 
alike  holy. 

"*We  are  aware  that  a  variety  of  sentiment  exists 
among  the  good  citizens  of  this  nation,  on  the  subject  of 
the  Sabbath  day  ;  and  our  Government  is  designed  for 
the  protection  of  one  as  much  as  another.  The  Jews, 
who  in  this  country  are  as  free  as  Christians,  and  entitled 
to  the  same  protection  from  the  laws,  derive  their  obliga- 
tion to  keep  the  Sabbath  day  from  the  fourth  command- 
ment of  their  decalogue,  and  in  conformity  with  that 
injunction,  pay  religious  homage  to  the  seventh  day  of 
the  week,  which  we  call  Saturday.  One  denomination  of 
Christians  among  us,  justly  celebrated  for  their  piety,  and 
certainly  as  good  citizens  as  any  other  class,  agree  with 
the  Jews  in  the  moral  obligation  of  the  Sabbath,  and 
observe  the  same  day.  .  .  .  The  Jewish  Government  was 
a  theocracy,  which  enforced  religious  observances  ;  and 
though  the  committee  would  hope  that  no  portion  of  the 
citizens  of  our  country  would  willingly  introduce  a  sys- 
tem of  religious  coercion  in  our  civil  institutions,  the 
example  of  other  nations  should  admonish  us  to  watch 
carefully  against  its  earliest  indication.  With  these  dif- 
erent  religious  views,  the  committee  are  of  opinion  that 
Congress  cannot  interfere.  It  is  not  the  legitimate  prov- 
ince of  the  legislature  to  determine  what  religion  is  true,  or 
what  false. 


148  CIVIL   GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

"  *  Our  Governme7it  is  a  civile  and  not  a  religious,  insti- 
tution. Our  Constitution  recognizes  in  every  person  the 
right  to  choose  his  own  religion,  and  to  enjoy  it  freely, 
without  molestation.  Whatever  may  be  the  religious 
sentiments  of  citizens,  and  however  variant,  they  are  alike 
entitled  to  protection  from  the  Government,  so  long  as 
they  do  not  invade  the  rights  of  others.  The  trans- 
portation of  the  mail  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  it  is 
believed,  does  not  interfere  with  the  rights  of  conscience. 
The  petitioners  for  its  discontinuance  appear  to  be  actuated 
by  a  religious  zeal  which  may  be  commendable  if  confined  to 
its  proper  sphere ;  but  they  assume  a  position  better  suited 
to  an  ecclesiastical  than  to  a  civil  institution.  They  appear 
in  many  instances  to  lay  it  down  as  an  axiom,  that  the 
practice  is  a  violation  of  the  law  of  God.  Should  Con- 
gress in  legislative  capacity  adopt  the  sentiment,  it  would 
establish  the  principle  that  the  legislature  is  a  proper  tri- 
bunal to  determine  what  are  the  laws  of  God.  It  would 
involve  a  legislative  decision  on  a  religious  controversy, 
and  on  a  point  in  w^hich  good  citizens  may  honestly  differ 
in  opinion,  without  disturbing  the  peace  of  society  or 
endangering  its  liberties.  If  this  principle  is  once  intro- 
duced, it  will  be  impossible  to  define  its  bounds. 

^^  ^  Among  all  the  religious  persecutions  with  which 
almost  every  page  of  modern  history  is  stained,  no  victim 
ever  suffered  but  for  the  violation  of  what  goverfiment  de- 
nominated the  lazv  of  God.  To  prevent  a  similar  train  of 
evils  in  this  country,  the  Constitution  has  wisely  withheld 
from  our  Government  the  power  of  defining  the  divine 
law.  It  is  a  right  reserved  to  each  citizen  ;  and  while  he  re- 
spects the  rights  of  others,  he  cannot  be  held  amenable  to 
any  human  tribunal  for  his  conclusions.  Extensive  relig- 
ious combinations  to  effect  a  political  object,  are,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  committee,  always  dangerous.  This  first 
effort  of  the  kind  calls  for  the  establishment  of  a  principle, 
which,  in  the  opinion  of  the  committee,  would  lay  the 
foundation  for  dangerous  innovations  upon  the  spirit  of 
the  Constitution,  and  upon  the  religious  rights  of  the  cit- 
izens. If  admitted,  it  may  be  justly  apprehended  that  the 
future  measures  of  the  Government  will  be  strongly  marked, 
if  not  eventually  controlled,  by  the  same  influence.  All  re- 
ligious despotism  commences  by  combination  and  influence. 


THE   WORKINGS    OF   A    SUNDAY   LAW.  149 

and  when  that  influence  begins  to  opej'ate  upon  the  political 
institutions  of  a  country,  the  civil  power  soon  beyids  under 
it;  and  the  catastrophe  of  other  nations  furnishes  an  awful 
zvarning  of  the  consequence. 

"  'While  the  mail  is  transported  on  Saturday,  the  Jew 
and  the  Sabbatarian  may  abstain  from  any  agency  in 
carrying  it,  on  conscientious  scruples.  While  it  is  trans- 
ported on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  another  class  may 
abstain,  from  the  same  religious  scruples.  The  obligation 
of  Government  is  the  same  on  both  these  classes  ;  and  the 
committee  can  discover  no  principle  on  which  the  claims 
of  one  should  be  more  respected  than  those  of  the  other, 
unless  it  be  admitted  that  the  consciences  of  the  minority 
are  less  sacred  than  those  of  the  majority. 

'*'If  the  observance  of  a  holy  day  becomes  incorpo- 
rated in  our  institutions,  shall  we  not  forbid  the  move- 
ment of  an  army,  prohibit  an  assault  in  time  of  war,  and 
lay  an  injunction  upon  our  naval  officers  to  lie  in  the  wind 
while  upon  the  ocean  on  that  day }  Consistency  would 
seem  to  require  it.  Nor  is  it  certain  that  we  should  stop 
here.  If  the  pinnciple  is  oiice  established  that  religion,  or 
religious  observances,  shall  be  interwoven  with  our  legisla- 
tive acts,  we  must  ptirsue  it  to  its  ultimatum.  We  shall,  if 
consistent,  provide  for  the  erection  of  edifices  for  worship 
of  the  Creator,  and  for  the  support  of  Christian  ministers, 
if  we.  believe  such  measures  will  promote  the  interests  of 
Christianity."^  It  is  the  settled  conviction  of  the  com- 
mittee, that  the  only  method  of  avoiding  these  conse- 
quences, with  their  attendant  train  of  evils,  is  to  adhere 

*  This  is  precisely  what  the  National  Reform  Association  proposes  to  do 
when  religious  legislation  is  once  recognized.  In  the  Christian  Statesman  of 
Feb.  21,  1884,  Rev.  J.  M.  Foster,  a  •' district  secretary  "  of  the  National  Re- 
form Association,  declared  that  among  the  duties  which  the  reigning  Mediator 
requires  of  nations,  is  "an  acknowledgment  and  performance  of  the  nation's 
duty  to  guard  and  protect  the  church  by  suppressing  all  public  violation  of  the 
moral  law,  ...  by  exempting  church  property  from  taxation,"  and  "3/ 
providing  her  funds  out  of  the  public  treasury,  for  carrying  on  her  aggressive 
work  at  home  and  in  the  foreign  field."  The  Scripture  says,  "God  hath  or- 
dained that  they  which  preach  the  gospel  shall  live  of  the  gospel ;  "  but  these 
men  propose  to  ordain  that  they  which  preach  the  gospel  shall  live  of  the  law, 
through  the  public  treasury. 


150  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

Strictly  to  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution,  which  regards 
the  general  Government  in  no  other  light  than  that  of  a 
civil  institution,  wholly  destitute  of  religious  authority. 
What  other  nations  call  religious  toleration,  we  call  relig- 
ious rights.  They  are  not  exercised  in  virtue  of  govern- 
mental indulgence,  but  as  rights,  of  which  Government 
cannot  deprive  any  portion  of  citizens,  however  small. 
Despotic  power  may  invade  those  rights,  but  justice  still 
confirms  them. 

*' '  Let  the  national  legislature  once  perform  an  act 
which  involves  the  decision  of  a  religious  controversy, 
and  it  will  have  passed  its  legitimate  bounds.  The  pre- 
cedent will  then  be  established,  and  the  foundation  laid, 
for  that  usurpation  of  the  divine  prerogative  in  this  coun- 
try which  has  been  the  desolating  scourge  to  the  fairest 
portion  of  the  Old  World. 

** '  Our  Constitution  recognizes  no  other  power  than^ 
that  of  persuasion,  for  enforcing  religious  observances. 
Let  the  professors  of  Christianity  recommend  their  re- 
ligion by  deeds  of  benevolence,  by  Christian  meekness, 
by  lives  of  temperance  and  holiness.  Let  them  combine 
their  efforts  to  instruct  the  ignorant,  to  relieve  the  widow 
and  the  orphan,  to  promulgate  to  the  world  the  gospel  of 
their  Saviour,  recommending  its  precepts  by  their  habit- 
ual example  ;  Government  will  find  its  legitimate  object 
in  protecting  them.  It  cannot  oppose  them,  and  they  will 
not  need  its  aid.  Their  moral  influence  ivill  then  do  in- 
finitely more  to  advance  the  true  interests  of  religion,  than 
any  measure  which  they  may  call  on  Congress  to  enact. 
The  petitioners  do  not  complain  of  any  infringement  upon 
their  own  rights.  They  enjoy  all  that  Christians  ought 
to  ask  at  the  hands  of  any  Government  —  protection  from 
all  molestation  in  the  exercise  of  their  religious  senti- 
ments.' 

''Resolved,  That  the  committee  be  discharged  from  any 
further  consideration  of  the  subject." 


APPENDIX  A. 


We  here  append  some  statements  of  prominent  citizens 
of  Arkansas,  who  are  not  observers  of  the  seventh  day,  in 
relation  to  the  workings  of  that  Sunday  law,  which  show 
that  our  report  of  the  cases  is  not  ''manufactured"  in  any 
particular. 

We  first  give  in  full  a  statement  from  Judge  S. 
W.  Williams,  of  Little  Rock,  an  ex-judge  of  the  State 
Supreme  Court,  and  one  of  the  foremost  lawyers  in  the 
State:  — 

Little  Rock,  Ark.,  March  21,  1887. 
Rev.  Dan.  T,  Jones^ 

Sir  :  As  requested,  I  give  you  a  short  resume  of  the 
history  of  our  Sabbath  law  of  1885.  Up  to  the  time  of 
the  meeting  of  the  legislature  in  January,  1885,  our  Sun- 
day law  had  always  excepted  from  its  sanctions  the  cases 
wherein  persons  from  conscience  kept  the  seventh  day  as 
the  Sabbath.  It  had  been  the  case  for  many  years  at 
the  capital,  that  no  Sabbath  laws  were  observed  by  the 
saloon-keepers.  After  the  election  of  1884,  the  newly 
elected  prosecuting  attorney  of  that  district,  commenced 
a  rigid  enforcement  of  the  law.  A  few  Jewish  saloon- 
keepers successfully  defied  it  during  the  session  of  the 
legislature.  This  led  to  the  total  and  unqualified  repeal 
of  the  conscience  proviso  for  the  seventh  day  in  the  old 
law.  This  was  used  oppressively  upon  the  seventh-day 
Sabbath  Christians,  to  an  extent  that  shocked  the  bar  of 
the  whole  State.  A  test  case  was  brought  from  Washing- 
ton County.  Our  Supreme  Court  could  not  see  its  way 
clear  to  hold  the  law  unconstitutional,  but  the  judges,  as 

(151) 


152  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

men  and  lav^^yers,  abborred  it.  Judge  B.  B.  Battle,  one 
of  the  three  judges,  was,  with  Judge  Rose  and  myself,  a 
member  of  the  standing  committee  on  law  reform  of  our 
State  Bar  Association.  In  our  report,  as  you  see,  we 
recommended  a  change,  which  the  Association  adopted 
unanimously,  Chief-Justice  Cockrill  and  Associate-Jus- 
tices Smith  and  Battle  being  members,  present  and  vot- 
ing. At  the  meeting  of  the  General  Assembly  the  next 
week  (January,  1887),  Senator  Crockett  introduced  a  bill 
repealing  the  obnoxious  law,  in'so  far  as  it  affected  those 
who  keep  holy  the  seventh  day,  still  forbidding  the  open- 
ing of  saloons  on  Sunday.         Truly  yours, 

Sam.  W.  Williams. 

In  the  following  letter.  Judge  U.  M.  Rose,  of  the  law 
firm  of  U.  M.  &  G.  B.  Rose,  Little  Rock,  one  of  the  lead- 
ing lawyers  in  the  State,  and  a  member  of  the  committee 
on  law  reform  of  the  State  Bar  Association,  gives  his 
opinion  of  the  reasons  why  the  law  was  enacted,  and  also 
his  views  as  a  lawyer  on  the  propriety  of  such  legislation. 
We  print  his  letter  in  full :  — 

Little  Rock,  Ark.,  April  15,  i887. 
Rev.  Dan.  T.  Jones, 

Springdale,  Ark., 

Dear  Sir  :  Yours  received.  The  law  passed  in  this 
State  in  1885,  and  which  has  since  been  repealed,  requir- 
ing all  persons  to  keep  Sunday  as  a  day  of  rest,  although 
they  might  religiously  keep  some  other  day  of  the  week, 
was  enacted,  I  think,  to  meet  the  case  of  certain  Jews  in 
this  city  who  kept  saloons  and  other  business  houses  open 
on  Sunday.  It  was  said  that  those  persons  only  made  a 
pretense  of  keeping  Saturday  as  a  day  of  rest.  Whether 
these  statements  were  true  or  not,  I  do  not  know.  The 
act  of  1885  was  found  to  work  oppressively  on  persons 
believing  as  you  do  that  Saturday  is  the  Christian  as  well 
as  the  Jewish  Sabbath  ;  and  hence  its  repeal.  It  was 
manifestly  unjust  to  them  as  well  as  to  Jews  who  are 
sincere  in  their  faith. 

You  ask  me  to  express  my  opimon  as  to  the  propriety 
of  such  legislation  as  that  contained  in  the  repealed  act. 


APPENDIX    A.  153 

Nothing  can  exceed  my  abhorrence  for  any  kind  of  legis- 
lation that  has  for  its  object  the  restraint  of  any  class  of 
men  in  the  exercise  of  their  own  religious  opinions.  It 
is  -the  fundamental  basis  of  our  Government  that  every 
man  shall  be  allowed  to  worship  God  according  to  the 
dictates  of  his  own  conscience.  It  was  certainly  not  a 
little  singular,  that  while  in  our  churches  the  command 
was  regularly  read  at  stated  times,  requiring  all  men  to 
keep  the  Sabbath,  which,  amongst  the  Jews  to  whom  the 
command  was  addressed,  was  the  seventh  day  of  the  week, 
men  should  be  prosecuted  and  convicted  in  the  courts  for 
doing  so.  As  to  the  theological  aspect  of  the  matter,  I 
am  not  competent  to  speak  ;  but  as  a  civil  requirement, 
my  opinion  is  that  any  legislation  that  attempts  to  control 
the  consciences  of  men  as  to  the  discharge  of  religious 
duty,  can  only  be  the  result  of  that  ignorance  and  fanati- 
cism which  for  centuries  proved  to  be  the  worst  curse  that 
ever  afflicted  humanity.  Very  respectfully  yours, 

U.  M.  Rose. 

Mr.  E.  Stinson  is  a  farmer  and  teacher  in  Hot  Spring 
County,  and  writes  :  — 

Malcolm,  Hot  Spring  Co.,  Ark.,  March  27,  1887. 
Air.  Jones, 

Dear  Sir  :  In  answer  to  your  inquiry,  will  say  that 
since  the  repeal  of  the  exemption  clause  in  our  statutes, 
which  allowed  persons  who  kept  another  day  than  Sun- 
day as  Sabbath,  to  go  about  their  ordinary  work  or  busi- 
ness on  that  day,  several  indictments  have  been  found 
in  Hot  Spring  County.  In  each  and  every  case  the 
parties  so  indicted  have  been  conscientious  observers  of 
the  seventh  day,  so  far  as  I  know  them.  To  my  knowl- 
edge, others  have  worked  on  Sunday  who  did  not  observe 
the  seventh  day,  and  no  bills  were  found  against  them. 
I  believe  the  prosecutions  to  be  more  for  religious  per- 
secution than  for  the  purpose  of  guarding  the  Sunday 
from  desecration.  The  men  who  have  been  indicted  are 
all  good  moral  men  and  law-abiding  citizens,  to  the  best 
of  my  knowledge.  The  indictments,  to  the  best  of  my 
belief,  were  malicious  in  their  character,  and  without 
provocation.     I  believe  the  unmodified  Sunday  law  to  be 


154  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

unjust  in  its  nature,  and  that  it  makes  an  unjust  discrim- 
ination against  a  small  but  worthy  class  of  our  citizens. 
I  am  a  member  of  the  Baptist  Church,  and  not  an  observer 
of  the  seventh  day  ;  but  I  accept  with  gratitude  the  recent 
change  in  the  laws  of  our  State,  which  shows  more  respect 
for  the  conscientious  convictions  of  all  our  citizens.  I  do 
not  believe  that  if  the  same  acts  for  which  the  indictments 
were  lodged  against  Seventh-Day  Adventists,  had  been 
committed  by  those  who  did  not  keep  the  seventh  day, 
any  notice  would  have  been  taken  of  them. 

Respectfully, 

E.  Stinson. 

We  present  in  full  a  letter  from  the  physician  and  the 
proprietor  of  the  Potash  Sulphur  Springs  Hotel,  a  health 
resort  seven  miles  southeast  of  Hot  Springs.  These 
gentlemen  are  both  old  residents  of  the  place,  and  are 
personally  acquainted  with  some  of  those  who  were  con- 
victed of  Sabbath-breaking  in  Hot  Spring  County. 

Potash  Sulphur  Springs,  Ark.,  March,  188T. 
To  whom  it  may  concern :  — 

We,  the  undersigned,  herewith  testify  that  the  recent 
prosecutions  against  the  observers  of  the  seventh-day 
Sabbath  in  our  vicinity,  have  brought  to  the  surface  a 
religious  intolerance  and  a  spirit  of  persecution,  the 
existence  whereof  a  great  many  imagine  not  to  exist  any 
more  in  our  time.  J.  T.  Fairchild,  M.  D. 

E.  E.  Woodcock. 

Another  letter,  from  Mr.  Fitzhugh,  a  Justice  of  the 
Peace,  and  acting  deputy-sheriff  in  Hot  Spring  County 
during  the  two  years  in  which  the  unmodified  Sunday  law 
was  in  force,  will  show  the  estimate  as  citizens  and  neigh- 
bors, placed  upon  some  who  were  indicted  for  Sabbath- 
breaking. 

State  of  Arkansas,  County  of  Hot  Spring, 

Salim  Township,  April  9,  1887. 
On  the  second  day  of  March,  1885,  the  legislature  of  Ar- 
kansas repealed  the  law  allowing  any  person  to  observe 


APPENDIX    A.  155 

^s  the  Sabbath  any  day  of  the  week  that  they  preferred, 
and  compelled  them  to  keep  the  Christian  Sabbath,  or 
first  day  of  the  week.  The  effect  of  this  change  worked 
a  hardship  on  a  class  of  citizens  in  this  county,  known  as 
Seventh-day  Adventists,  who  observe  the  seventh  instead 
of  the  first  day  of  the  week,  as  the  Lord's  Sabbath.  There 
were  five  or  six  of  them  indicted  (and  some  of  them  the 
second  time)  by  the  Grand  Jury  of  this  county,  for  the 
violation  of  this  law.  In  fact,  these  people  were  the  only 
ones  that  were  indicted  for  Sabbath-breaking,  during  the 
two  years  in  which  this  law  was  in  force.  I  was  not  inti- 
mately acquainted  with  but  one  of  these  people,  Mr.  John 
Shockey,  who  moved  from  Ohio,  and  settled  within  one 
and  one  fourth  miles  of  me,  some  two  and  a  half  years  ago. 
I  know  nothing  in  the  character  of  this  gentleman  but 
what  would  recommend  him  to  the  world  at  large.  As  a 
citizen,  he  recognizes  and  regards  the  laws  of  our  country 
(with  the  above  exception)  ;  as  a  neighbor,  he  might  well 
be  called  a  Samaritan  ;  as  a  Christian,  he  is  strict  to  his 
profession,  and  proves  his  faith  by  his  works. 
Respectfully, 
Benj.  C.  Fitzhugh,  Justice  of  the  Peace. 

Malvern^  Hot  Spring  Co.,  Ark. 


APPENDIX  B. 


THE    BLAIR    BILL,    WITH    CHANGES    DESIRED    BY   THE 
AMERICAN   SABBATH    UNION. 

At  the  National  Sunday-law  convention  held  in  Wash- 
ington, D.  C,  Dec.  11-13,  1888,  the  original  Blair  Sunday- 
bill  was  discussed  by  the  preachers,  with  Mrs.  J.  Ellen 
Foster  as  legal  adviser,  and  the  following  changes  were 
proposed,  and  unanimously  adopted  Dec.  12.  This  is  from 
the  official  record.  The  changes  are  indicated  by  stars 
and  bold-faced  letters. 

"  A  Bill  to  secure  to  the  people  the  enjoyment  of  the 

Lord's  day,  commonly  known  as  Sunday,  as  a  day  of 

rest,  and  to  protect  its  observance  as  a  day  of  religious 
worship. 

^''  Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representa- 
tives of  the  United  States  of  America  in  Congress  assem- 
bled, That  on  Sunday,  no  person  or  corporation,  or  the 
agent,  servant,  or  employee  of  any  person  or  corporation, 
shall  perform,  or  authorize  to  be  performed,  any  secular 
work,  labor,  or  business,  *  ^^  *  works  of  necessity,  mercy, 
and  humanity  excepted  ;  nor  shall  any  person  engage  in 
any  play,  game,  show,  exhibition,  or  amusement  *  *  * 
open  to  the  public,  or  of  a  public  character,  in  any 
Territory,  district,  vessel,  or  place  subject  to  the  exclusive 
jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  ;  nor  shall  it  be  lawful  for 
any  person  or  corporation  to  receive  pay  for  labor  or  serv- 
ice performed  or  rendered  in  violation  of  this  section. 

'*  Sec.  2.  That  no  mails  or  mail  matter  shall  hereafter 
be  transported  in  time  of  peace  over  any  land  postal-route, 
(156) 


APPENDIX    P.,  15T 

nor  shall  any  mail  matter  be  collected,  assorted,  handled, 
or  delivered  during  any  part  of  Sunday, 

"  Sec.  3.  That  the  prosecution  of  commerce  between 
the  States  and  with  the  Indian  tribes,  ^  *  ^  by  the  trans- 
portation of  persons  or  property  by  land  or  water  *  *  * 
on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  ^  *  *  is  hereby  prohibited, 
and  any  person  or  corporation,  or  the  agent,  servant,  or  em- 
ployee of  any  person  or  corporation,  who  shall  *  *  -^  vio- 
late this  section,  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  not  less 
than  ten  nor  more  than  one  thousand  dollars,  and  no  serv- 
ice performed  in  the  prosecution  of  such  prohibited  com- 
merce shall  be  lawful,  nor  shall  any  compensation  be  re- 
coverable or  be  paid  for  the  same. 

**  Sec.  6.  That  labor  or  service  performed  and  rendered 
on  Sunday  in  consequence  of  accident,  disaster,  or  un- 
avoidable delays  in  making  the  regular  connections  upon 
postal-routes  and  routes  of  travel  and  transportation,  the 
*  *  *  transportation  and  delivery  of  milk  before  6  A,  M. 
and  after  10  P.  M,,  *  ^  *  shall  not  be  deemed  violations 
of  this  act,  but  the  same  shall  be  construed,  so  far  as 
possible,  to  secure  to  the  whole  people  rest  from  toil 
during  Sunday,  their  mental  and  moral  culture,  and  the 
protection  of  the  religious  observance  of  the  ^  ^  "^  day." 

The  reasons  for  the  changes  asked  are,  in  part,  as 
follows  :  — 

*'  For  religious  purposes  we  prefer  the  name  Lord's  day 
or  CJiristian  Sabbath  but  as  Sunday  is  already  used  in 
national  laws,  we  think  it  better  to  use  that  uniformly  in 
this  bill,  with  the  one  exception  of  the  double  name  in 
the  title. 

"  The  word  promote  in  the  title  goes  beyond  what 
many,  even  Christian  citizens,  believe  to  be  the  proper 
function  of  government  with  reference  to  'religious  wor- 
ship,' while  the  word  protect  (see  also  last  line)  expresses 
a  duty  which  government  owes  to  all  legitimate  institu- 
tions of  the  people. 

*'  Experience  in  the  courts  has  shown  that  the  words 
show  and  exhibition  should  be  added  to  the  list  of  pro- 
hibited Sunday  amusements,  and  the  words  in  piiblic,  in 

« 


158  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

place  of  to  the  disturbance  of  others,  as  the  latter  clause 
has  been  construed  as  requiring  that  persons  living  in  the 
•neighborhood  of  a  Sunday  game  or  show  must  testify 
that  they  have  been  disturbed,  in  order  to  a  conviction, 
which  cannot  be  done  in  some  cases  without  personal 
peril. 

'*  In  Section  2,  we  believe  that  the  exceptions  for 
letters  relating  to  sickness,  etc.,  are  unnecessary  in  this 
age  of  the  telegraph  ;  and  that  they  would  be  used  by 
unscrupulous  men  in  business  correspondence,  and  that 
this  would  destroy  most  of  the  benefits  of  the  law  in  its 
bearing  on  Sunday  mails. 

"  In  Section  3,  we  believe  the  exceptions  made  would 
greatly  interfere  with  the  administration  of  the  law.  The 
exception  for  work  of  mercy  and  necessity  is  made,  once 
for  all,  in  the  first  section.  The  reference  to  'the  dis- 
turbance of  others '  is  objectionable  for  reasons  already 
given,  and  the  word  willfully  is  an  old  offender  in  Sab- 
bath legislation,  and  requires  evidence  very  hard  to  get 
in  regard  to  one's  motive  and  knowledge  of  the  law.  In 
other  laws  it  is  assumed  that  one  knows  the  law,  and  the 
law-making  power  should  see  that  the  laws  are  well  pub- 
lished, and  leave  no  room  for  one  to  escape  by  agnosti- 
cism. 

"  In  Section  3  (as  in  Section  1  also),  we  would  omit  the 
words  Lord's  day,  and  in  Section  6,  Sabbath,  in  order  to 
preserve  uniformity  in  using  the  less  religious  term  Sun- 
day. 

"In  Section  6,  we  think  refrigerator  cars  make  Sunday 
work  in  transportation  of  perishable  food,  except  milk, 
unnecessary,  and  the  new  stock-cars,  with  provision  for 
food  and  water,  do  the  same  for  stock-trains.  So  many 
of  the  State  Sunday  laws  have  proved  almost  useless  in 
protecting  the  rights  of  the  people  to  Sunday  rest  and 
undisturbed  worship,  by  the  smallness  of  their  penalties 
and  the  largeness  of  their  exceptions,  that  we  covet  from 
Congress  a  law  that  shall  make  itself  effective  by  small 
exceptions  and  large  penalties." 

With  a  little  care  in  comparison,  the  reader  can  readily 
see  what  changes  have  been  made  in  the  bill.  We  have 
omitted   Sections  4  and  5  from  the  revised  bill,  because 


APPENDIX   B.  159 

they  are  the  same  as  the  corresponding  sections  in  the 
original  bill,  with  the  single  exception  that  the  word 
Siinday  is  substituted  for  Loi^d's  day,  in  the  last  line  of 
Section  4.  We  hope  that  every  one  will  study  both  bills 
thoroughly,  together  with  the  committee's  reasons  for  the 
changes.  Any  one  can  see  that  the  changes  are  in  the 
line  of  greater  stringency.  We  note  only  the  most  prom- 
inent points. 

1.  The  change  from  Loi^d's  day  to  Sunday,  although  a 
proper  one,  is  in  reality  no  change  at  all,  since  the  term 
Lord's  day  is  still  used  at  the  beginning,  and  it  is  ex- 
pressly stated  that  Sunday  is  used  only  as  a  matter  of 
custom.  It  is  understood  that  it  is  as  a  religious  day, 
indicated  by  the  term  Lord's  day,  that  they  want  the 
observance  of  the  first  day  of  the  week  enforced  ;  but  if 
the  term  Sunday  is  quite  generally  used,  it  will,  no  doubt, 
*'  take  "  better. 

2.  In  asking  for  the  ^'protection  of  the  religious  ob- 
servance of  the  day,"  instead  of  the  promotion  of  its  ob- 
servance as  a  day  of  religious  worship,  the  committee 
threw  a  sop  to  those  who  are  "on  the  fence"  in  regard 
to  religious  legislation.  As  it  stands,  it  amounts  to  noth- 
ing ;  for  there  is  not  a  State  or  Territory  in  the  Union 
where  any  religious  service  held  on  Sunday  would  not 
be  protected. 

3.  The  most  important  change  of  all,  however,  is  the 
substitution  of  the  words  in  public  for  to  the  disturbance 
of  otJiers,  in  Section  1.  This  will  certainly  make  the  law 
more  effective.  It  is  obvious  that  if  a  man  were  to  engage 
in  work  a  mile  from  a  dwelling-house,  it  would  be  quite  a 
task  for  the  owner  of  the  house  to  convince  even  an 
ordinary  jury  that  such  labor  disturbed  him  ;  but  by  the 
terms  of  the  amended  bill,  the  man  may  be  convicted  if 
he  is  working  in  a  public  place,  provided  anybody  can 
get  near  enough  to  him  to  see  him. 


160  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

4.  Notice  the  radical  change  made  in  Section  2.  As 
amended,  it  is  most  sweeping,  allowing  of  no  exception. 
The  mail  is  not  to  be  carried  at  all  on  Sunday,  even  in 
cases  of,  sickness  and  death,  lest  some  *' unscrupulous " 
person  should  mention  business  on  that  day.  If  the  mail 
is  not  carried,  of  course  that  will  make  him  a  good  man  ! 
It  is  no  concern  of  ours  how  they  propose  to  carry  out 
this  law,  but  we  can't  help  wondering  what  they  will  do 
when  Sunday  comes,  and  a  train  carrying  the  mail  is  on 
the  way  from  one  city  to  another  within  the  same  State, 
say  from  San  Francisco  to  Los  Angeles.  The  train  is 
owned  by  a  corporation,  and  is  not  in  a  part  of  the  coun- 
try **  subject  to  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States,"  and  therefore  could  not  be  forced  to  lie  over. 
The  only  way  out  of  the  difficulty,  under  the  provision 
of  this  bill,  would  be  to  dump  all  the  mail  out  at  the 
nearest  station,  and  let  it  lie  there  till  Sunday  was  past. 

This,  however,  would  not  be  done.  What  would  be 
done,  would  be  the  passing  of  laws  by  the  several  States^ 
forbidding  all  labor  within  their  jurisdiction  ;  and  it  is 
this  for  which  these  zealous  people  are  scheming.  This 
United  States  law  is  designed  as  a  precedent,  and  as  a 
lever  with  which  to  secure  the  religious  observance  of 
Sunday  by  all  the  people  in  the  United  States,  whether 
they  are  religious  or  not. 

5.  We  wish  to  call  special  attention,  also,  to  the  last 
sentence  of  the  **  reason  for  the  changes  asked."  It  says  : 
''  So  many  of  the  State  Sunday  laws  have  proved  almost 
useless  in  protecting  the  rights  of  the  people  to  Sunday 
rest  and  undisturbed  worship,  by  the  smallness  of  their 
penalties  and  the  largeness  of  their  exceptions,  that  we 
covet  from  Congress  a  law  that  shall  make  itself  effective 
by  small  exceptions  and  large  penalties''  There  the  real 
spirit  of  the  dragon  exhibits  itself.  In  that  simple  state- 
ment  is    compressed  a  world  of  bigotry  and    animosity. 


APPENDIX  C 


THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE. 

When,  in  the  course  of  human  events,  it  becomes  necessary  for  one  people 
to  dissolve  the  political  bands  which  have  connected  them  with  another,  and 
to  assume,  among  the  powers  of  the  earth,  the  separate  and  equal  station  to 
which  the  laws  of  nature  and  of  nature's  God  entitle  them,  a  decent  respect  to 
the  opinions  of  mankind  requires  that  they  should  declare  the  causes  which 
impel  them  to  the  separation. 

We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident,  that  all  men  are  created  equal ; 
that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain  unalienable  rights  ;  that 
among  these  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  That  to  secure 
these  rights,  governments  are  instituted  among  men,  deriving  their  just  powers 
from  the  consent  of  the  governed  ;  that  whenever  any  form  of  government 
becomes  destructive  of  these  ends,  it  is  the  right  of  the  people  to  alter  or 
to  abolish  it,  and  to  institute  a  new  government,  laying  its  foundation  on  such 
principles,  and  organizing  its  powers  in  such  form,  as  to  them  shall  seem  most 
likely  to  effect  their  safety  and  happiness.  Prudence,  indeed,  will  dictate  that 
governments  long  established,  should  not  be  changed  for  light  and  transient 
causes  ;  and  accordingly,  all  experience  hath  shown  that  mankind  are  more 
disposed  to  suffer,  while  evils  are  sufferable,  than  to  right  themselves  by  abol- 
ishing the  forms  to  which  they  are  accustomed.  But  when  a  long  train  of 
abuses  and  usurpations,  pursuing  invariably  the  same  object,  evinces  a  design 
to  reduce  them  under  absolute  despotism,  it  is  their  right,  it  is  their  duty,  to 
throw  off  such  government,  and  to  provide  new  guards  for  their  future  security. 
Such  has  been  the  patient  sufferance  of  these  Colonies,  and  such  is  now  the 
necessity  which  constrains  them  to  alter  their  former  systems  of  government. 
The  history  of  the  present  king  of  Great  Britain,  is  a  history  of  repeated  injuries 
and  usurpations,  all  having,  in  direct  object,  the  establishment  of  an  absolute 
tyranny  over  these  States.  To  prove  this,  let  facts  be  submitted  to  a  candid 
world  :  — 

He  has  refused  his  assent  to  laws  the  most  wholesome  and  necessary  for 
the  public  good. 

He  has  forbidden  his  Governors  to  pass  laws  of  immediate  and  pressing 
importance,  unless  suspended  in  their  operation  till  his  assent  should  be 
II  (i6i) 


162  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

obtained  ;  and,  when  so  suspended,  he  has  utterly  neglected  to  attend  to  them. 

He  has  refused  to  pass  other  laws  for  the  accommodation  of  large  districts 
of  people,  unless  those  people  would  relinquish  the  right  of  representation  in 
the  legislature  ;  a  right  inestimable  to  them,  and  formidable  to  tyrants  only. 

He  has  called  together  legislative  bodies  at  places  unusual,  uncomfortable, 
and  distant  from  the  depository  of  their  public  records,  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
fatiguing  them  into  compliance  with  his  measures. 

He  has  dissolved  representative  houses  repeatedly,  for  opposing,  with  manly 
firmness,  his  invasions  on  the  rights  of  the  people. 

He  has  refused,  for  a  long  time  after  such  dissolutions,  to  cause  others  to 
be  elected  ;  whereby  the  legislative  powers,  incapable  of  annihilation,  have 
returned  to  the  people  at  large  for  their  exercise  ;  the  State  remaining,  in  the 
meantime,  exposed  to  all  the  danger  of  invasion  from  without,  and  convulsions 
within. 

He  has  endeavored  to  prevent  the  population  of  these  States  ;  for  that  pur- 
pose obstructing  the  laws  for  the  naturalization  of  foreigners,  refusing  to  pass 
others  to  encourage  their  migration  hither,  and  raising  the  conditions  of  new 
appropriations  of  lands. 

He  has  obstructed  the  administration  of  justice,  by  refusing  his  assent  to 
laws  for  establishing  judiciary  powers. 

He  has  made  judges  dependent  on  his  will  alone  for  the  tenure  of  their 
offices,  and  the  amount  and  payment  of  their  salaries. 

He  has  erected  a  multitude  of  new  offices,  and  sent  hither  swarms  of  officers 
to  harass  our  people  and  eat  out  their  substance. 

He  has  kept  among  us,  in  times  of  peace,  standing  armies,  without  the 
consent  of  our  legislature. 

He  has  affected  to  render  the  military  independent  of,  and  superior  to,  the 
civil  power. 

He  has  combined,  with  others,  to  subject  us  to  a  jurisdiction  foreign  to  our 
Constitution,  and  unacknowledged  by  our  laws  ;  giving  his  assent  to  their  acts 
of  pretended  legislation. 

For  quartering  large  bodies  of  armed  troops  among  us  : 

For  protecting  them,  by  a  mock  trial,  from  punishment  for  any  murders 
which  they  should  commit  on  the  inhabitants  of  these  States  : 

For  cutting  off  our  trade  with  all  parts  of  the  world  : 

For  imposing  taxes  on  us  without  our  consent  : 

For  depriving  us,  in  many  cases,  of  the  benefits  of  trial  by  jury  : 

For  transporting  us  beyond  seas  to  be  tried  for  pretended  offenses  : 

For  abolishing  the  free  system  of  English  laws  in  a  neighboring  province, 
establishing  therein  an  arbitrary  government,  and  enlarging  its  boundaries,  so 
as  to  render  it  at  once  an  example  and  fit  instrument  for  introducing  the  same 
absolute  rule  into  these  Colonies  : 

For  taking  away  our  charters,  abolishing  our  most  valuable  laws,  and  alter- 
ing, fundamentally,  the  powers  of  our  governments  : 


APPENDIX    C.  163 

For  suspending  our  own  legislatures,  and  declaring  themselves  invested  with 
power  to  legislate  for  us  in  all  cases  whatsoever. 

He  has  abdicated  government  here,  by  declaring  us  out  of  his  protection, 
and  waging  war  against  us. 

He  has  plundered  our  seas,  ravaged  our  coasts,  burnt  our  towns,  and 
destroyed  the  lives  of  our  people. 

He  is,  at  this  time,  transporting  large  armies  of  foreign  mercenaries  to 
complete  the  works  of  death,  desolation,  and  tyranny,  already  begun,  with 
circumstances  of  cruelty  and  perfidy  scarcely  paralleled  in  the  most  barbarous 
ages,  and  totally  unworthy  the  head  of  a  civilized  nation. 

He  has  constrained  our  fellow-citizens,  taken  captive  on  the  high  seas,  to 
bear  arms  against  their  country,  to  become  the  executioners  of  their  friends 
and  brethren,  or  to  fall  themselves  by  their  hands. 

He  has  excited  domestic  insurrections  among  us,  and  has  endeavored  to 
bring  on  the  inhabitants  of  our  frontiers  the  merciless  Indian  savages,  whose 
known  rule  of  warfare  is  an  undistinguished  destruction  of  all  ages,  sexes,  and 
conditions. 

In  every  stage  of  these  oppressions,  we  have  petitioned  for  redress  in  the 
most  humble  terms ;  our  repeated  petitions  have  been  answered  only  by 
repeated  injury.  A  prince  whose  character  is  thus  marked  by  every  act  which 
may  define  a  tyrant,  is  unfit  to  be  the  ruler  of  a  free  people. 

Nor  have  we  been  wanting  in  attention  to  our  British  brethren.  We  have 
warned  them,  from  time  to  time,  of  attempts  made  by  their  legislature  to 
extend  an  unwarrantable  jurisdiction  over  us.  We  have  reminded  them  of  the 
circumstances  of  our  emigration  and  settlement  here.  We  have  appealed  to 
their  native  justice  and  magnanimity,  and  we  have  conjured  them,  by  the  ties 
of  our  common  kindred,  to  disavow  these  usurpations,  which  would  inevitably 
interrupt  our  connections  and  correspondence.  They,  too,  have  been  deaf  to 
the  voice  of  justice  and  consanguinity.  We  must,  therefore,  acquiesce  in  the 
necessity  which  denounces  our  separation,  and  hold  them,  as  we  hold  the  rest 
of  mankind,  enemies  in  war,  in  peace  friends. 

W^e,  therefore,  the  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
General  Congress  assembled,  appealing  to  the  Supreme  Judge  of  the  world  for 
the  rectitude  of  our  intentions,  do,  in  the  name  and  by  the  authority  of  the 
good  people  of  these  Colonies,  solemnly  publish  and  declare.  That  these  United 
Colonies  are,  and,  of  right,  ought  to  be,  free  and  independent  States  ;  that  they 
are  absolved  from  all  allegiance  to  the  British  crown,  and  that  all  political  con- 
nection between  them  and  the  State  of  Great  Britain  is,  and  ought  to  be, 
totally  dissolved  ;  and  that,  as  free  and  independent  States,  they  have  full 
power  to  levy  war,  conclude  peace,  contract  alliances,  establish  commerce,  and 
to  do  all  other  acts  and  things  which  independent  States  may  of  right  do. 
And,  for  the  support  of  this  Declaration,  with  a  firm  reliance  on  the  protection 
of  Divine  Providence,  we  mutually  pledge  to  each  other  our  lives,  our  for- 
tunes, and  our  sacred  honor. 


164 


CIVIL    GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 


Massachusetts  Bay. 
John  Hancock, 
Samuel  Adams, 
John  Adams, 
Robert  Treat  Paine, 
Elbridge  Gerry. 

New  Hampshire. 

JOSIAH    BaRTLETT, 

William  Whipple, 
Matthew  Thornton. 

Rhode  Island. 
Stephen  Hopkins, 
William  Ellery. 

New    York. 
William  Floyd, 
Philip  Livingston, 
Francis  Lewis, 
Lewis  Morris. 

New  Jersey, 
Richard  Stockton, 
John  Witherspoon, 
Francis  Hopkinson, 
John  Hart, 
Abraham  Clark. 

Pennsylvania. 
Robert  Morris, 
Benjamin  Rush, 
Benjamin  Franklin, 
John  Morton, 
George  Clymer, 
James  Smith, 
George  Taylor, 
James  Wilson, 
George  Ross. 


Connecticut. 
Roger  Sherman, 
Samuel  Huntington, 
William  Williams, 
Oliver  Wolcott. 

Delazvare. 
C^SAR  Rodney, 
George  Read, 
Thomas  M'Kean. 

Maryland. 
Samuel  Chase, 
William  Paca, 
Thomas  Stone, 
Charles  Carroll,  of  Carrollton. 

Virginia. 
George  Wythe, 
Richard  Henry  Lee, 
Thomas  Jefferson, 
Benjamin  Harrison, 
Thomas  Nelson,  Jun., 
Francis  Lightfoot  Lee, 
Carter  Braxton. 

North   Carolina. 
William  Hooper, 
Joseph  Hewes, 
John  Penn. 

South  Carolina. 
Edward  Rutledge, 
Thomas  Heyward,  Jun., 
Thomas  Lynch,  Jun., 
Arthur  Middleton. 
Georgia. 
Button  Gwinnett, 
Lyman  Hall, 
George  Walton. 


APPENDIX  D. 


'      THE  CONSTITUTION   OF   THE   UNITED   STATES. 

We,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  in  order  to  form  a  more  perfect  anion, 
establish  justice,  insure  domestic  tranquillity,  provide  for  the  common  defense, 
promote  the  general  welfare,  and  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty  to  ourselves 
and  our  posterity,  do  ordain  and  establish  this  Constitution  for  the  United 
States  of  America. 

Article  1, 

Section  i.  All  legislative  powers  herein  granted  shall  be  vested  in  a 
Congress  of  the  United  States,  which  shall  consist  of  a  Senate  and  House  of 
Representatives. 

Sec.  2.  The  House  of  Representatives  shall  be  composed  of  members 
chosen  every  second  year  by  the  people  of  the  several  States,  and  the  electors 
in  each  State  shall  have  the  qualifications  requisite  for  electors  of  the  most 
numerous  branch  of  the  State  legislature. 

No  person  shall  be  a  representative  who  shall  not  have  attained  to  the  age 
of  twenty-five  years,  and  been  seven  years  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and 
who  shall  not,  when  elected,  be  an  inhabitant  of  that  State  in  which  he  shall 
be  chosen. 

Representatives  and  direct  taxes  shall  be  apportioned  among  the  several 
States  which  may  be  included  within  this  Union,  according  to  their  respective 
numbers,  which  shall  be  determined  hy  adding  to  the  whole  number  of  free 
persons,  including  those  bound  to  service  for  a  term  of  years,  and  excluding 
Indians  not  taxed,  three  fifths  of  all  other  persons.  The  actual  enumeration 
shall  be  made  within  three  years  after  the  first  meeting  of  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States,  and  within  every  subsequent  term  of  ten  years,  in  such  manner 
as  they  shall  by  law  direct.  The  number  of  representatives  shall  not  exceed 
one  for  every  thirty  thousand,  but  each  State  shall  have  at  least  one  repre- 
sentative ;  and  until  such  enumeration  shall  be  made,  the  State  of  New  Hamp 
shire  shall  be  entitled  to  choose  three  ;  Massachusetts,  eight ;  Rhode  Island 
and  Providence  Plantations,  one  ;  Connecticut,  five  ;  New  York,  six  ;  New 
Jersey,  four  ;  Pennsylvania,  eight ;  Delaware,  one  ;  Maryland,  six  ;  Virginia, 
ten  ;  North  Carolina,  five  ;  South  Carolina,  five  ;  and  Georgia,  three. 

When  vacancies  happen  in  the  representation  from  any  State,  the  executive 
authority  thereof  shall  issue  writs  of  election  to  fill  such  vacancies. 

(165) 


166  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

The  House  of  Representatives  shall  chose  their  Speaker  and  other  officers^ 
and  shall  have  the  sole  power  of  impeachment. 

Sec.  3.  The  Senate  of  the  United  States  shall  be  composed  of  two  sen- 
ators from  each  State,  chosen  by  the  legislature  thereof,  for  six  years  ;  and 
each  senator  shall  have  one  vote. 

Immediately  after  they  shall  be  assembled  in  consequence  of  the  first  elec- 
tion, they  shall  be  divided  as  equally  as  may  be  into  three  classes.  The  seats 
of  the  senators  of  the  first  class  shall  be  vacated  at  tl\e  expiration  of  the  second 
year  ;  of  the  second  class,  at  the  expiration  of  the  fourth  year  ;  and  of  the  third 
class,  at  the  expiration  of  the  sixth  year,  so  that  one  third  may  be  chosen  every 
second  year  ;  and  if  vacancies  happen  by  resignation,  -or  otherwise,  during  the 
recess  of  the  legislature  of  any  State,  the  executive  thereof  may  make  tempo- 
rary appointments  until  the  next  meeting  of  the  legislature,  which  shall  then 
fill  such  vacancies. 

No  person  shall  be  a  senator  who  shall  not  have  attained  to  the  age  of 
thirty  years,  and  been  nine  years  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  who  shall 
not,  when  elected,  be  an  inhabitant  of  that  State  for  which  he  shall  be  chosen. 

The  Vice-President  of  the  United  States  shall  be  president  of  the  Senate, 
but  shall  have  no  vote,  unless  they  be  equally  divided. 

The  Senate  shall  choose  their  other  officers,  and  also  a  president  pro  tem- 
pore^ in  the  absence  of  the  Vice-President,  or  when  he  shall  exercise  the  office 
of  President  of  the  United  States. 

The  Senate  shall  have  the  sole  power  to  try  all  impeachments.  When  sit- 
ting for  that  purpose,  they  shall  be  on  oath  or  affirmation.  When  the  President 
of  the  United  States  is  tried,  the  Chief-Justice  shall  preside.  And  no  per- 
son shall  be  convicted  without  the  concurrence  of  two  thirds  of  the  members 
present. 

Judgment  in  cases  of  impeachment  shall  not  extend  further  than  to  re- 
moval from  office,  and  disqualification  to  hold  and  enjoy  any  office  of  honor, 
trust,  or  profit  under  the  United  States  ;  but  the  party  convicted  shall  never- 
theless be  liable  and  subject  to  indictment,  trial,  judgment,  and  punishment, 
according  to  law. 

Sec.  4.  The  times,  places,  and  manner  of  holding  elections  for  senators 
and  representatives  shall  be  prescribed  in  each  State  by  the  legislature 
thereof  ;  but  the  Congress  may  at  any  time,  by  law,  make  or  alter  such  regula- 
tions, except  as  to  the  places  of  choosing  senators. 

The  Congress  shall  assemble  at  least  once  in  every  year,  and  such  meeting 
shall  be  on  the  first  Monday  in  December,  unless  they  shall,  by  law,  appoint  a 
different  day. 

Sec.  5.  Each  house  shall  be  the  judge  of  the  elections,  returns,  and  quali- 
fications of  its  own  members,  and  a  majority  of  each  shall  constitute  a  quorum 
to  do  business  ;  but  a  smaller  number  may  adjourn  from  day  to  day,  and  be 
authorized  to  compel  the  attendance  of  absent  members,  in  such  manner  and 
under  such  penalties  as  each  house  may  provide. 


APPENDIX    D.  167 

Each  house  may  determine  the  rules  of  its  proceedings,  punish  its  mem- 
bers for  disorderly  behavior,  and,  with  the  concurrence  of  two  thirds,  expet  a- 
member. 

Eac"h  house  shall  keep  a  journal  of  its  proceedings,  and  from  time  to  time 
publish  the  same,  excepting  such  parts  as  may  in  their  judgment  require 
secrecy  ;  and  the  yeas  and  nays  of  the  members  of  either  house  on  any  ques- 
tion shall,  at  the  desire  of  one  fifth  of  those  present,  be  entered  on  the  journal. 

Neither  house,  during  the  session  of  Congress,  shall,  without  the  consent  of 
the  other,  adjourn  for  more  than  three  days,  nor  to  any  other  place  than  that 
in  which  the  two  houses  shall  be  sitting. 

Sec.  6.  The  senators  and  representatives  shall  receive  a  compensation 
for  their  services,  to  be  ascertained  by  law,  and  paid  out  of  the  treasury  of  the 
United  States.  They  shall  in  all  cases,  except  treason,  felony,  and  breach  of 
the  peace,  be  privileged  from  arrest  during  their  attendance  at  the  session  of 
their  respective  houses,  and  in  going  to  and  returning  from  the  same  ;  and  for 
any  speech  or  debate  in  either  house  they  shall  not  be  questioned  in  any  other 
place. 

No  senator  or  representative  shall,  during  the  time  for  which  he  was  elected, 
be  appointed  to  any  civil  office  under  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  which 
shall  have  been  created,  or  the  emoluments  whereof  shall  have  been  increased, 
during  such  time  ;  and  no  person  holding  any  office  under  the  United  States 
shall  be  a  member  of  either  house  during  his  continuance  in  office. 

Sec.  7.  All  bills  for  raising  revenue  shall  originate  in  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives ;  but  the  Senate  may  propose  or  concur  with  amendments,  as  on 
other  bills. 

Every  bill  which  shall  have  passed  the  House  of  Representatives  and  the 
Senate,  shall,  before  it  become  a  law,  be  presented  to  the  President  of  the 
United  States  ;  if  he  approve,  he  shall  sign  it ;  but  if  not,  he  shall  return  it, 
with  his  objections,  to  that  house  in  which  it  shall  have  originated,  who  shall 
enter  the  objections  at  large  on  their  journal,  and  proceed  to  reconsider  it.  If 
after  such  reconsideration  two  thirds  of  that  house  shall  agree  to  pass  the  bill, 
it  shall  be  sent,  together  with  the  objections,  to  the  other  house,  by  which  it 
shall  likewise  be  reconsidered  ;  and  if  approved  by  two  thirds  of  that  house,  it 
shall  become  a  law.  But  in  all  such  cases,  the  votes  of  both  houses  shall  be 
determined  by  yeas  and  nays,  and  the  names  of  the  persons  voting  for  and 
against  the  bill  shall  be  entered  on  the  journal  of  each  house  respectively.  If 
any  bill  shall  not  be  returned  by  the  President  within  ten  days  (Sunday  ex- 
cepted) after  it  shall  have  been  presented  to  him,  the  same  shall  be  a  law  in 
like  manner  as  if  he  had  signed  it,  unless  the  Congress  by  their  adjournment 
prevent  its  return  ;  in  which  case  it  shall  not  be  a  law. 

Every  order,  resolution,  or  vote  to  which  the  concurrence  of  the  Senate  and 
the  House  of  Representatives  may  be  necessary  (except  on  a  question  of  ad- 
journment) shall  be  presented  to  the  President  of  the  United  States  ;  and  be- 
fore the  same  shall  take  effect,  shall  be  approved  by  him,  or,  being  disapproved 


168  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT  AND   RELIGION. 

by  him,  shall  be  repassed  by  two  thirds  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Repre 
sentatives,  according  to  the  rules  and  limitations  prescribed  in  the  case  of  a 
bill. 

Sec.  8.  The  Congress  shall  have  power  — 

To  lay  and  collect  taxes,  duties,  imposts,  and  excises,  to  pay  the  debts  and 
provide  for  the  common  defense  and  general  welfare  of  the  United  States  ;  but 
all  duties,  imposts,  and  excises  shall  be  uniform  throughout  the  United  States ; 

To  borrow  money  on  the  credit  of  the  United  States  ; 

To  regulate  commerce  with  foreign  nations,  and  among  the  several  States, 
and  with  the  Indian  tribes ; 

To  establish  a  uniform  rule  of  naturalization,  and  uniform  laws  on  the  sub- 
ject of  bankruptcies  throughout  the  United  States  ; 

To  coin  money,  regulate  the  value  thereof,  and  of  foreign  coin,  and  fix  the 
standard  of  weights  and  measures  ; 

To  provide  for  the  punishment  of  counterfeiting  the  securities  and  current 
coin  of  the  United  States  ; 

To  establish  post-offices  and  post-roads  ; 

To  promote  the  progress  of  science  and  useful  arts,  by  securing,  for  limited 
times,  to  authors  and  inventors,  the  exclusive  right  to  their  respective  writings 
and  discoveries ; 

To  constitute  tribunals  inferior  to  the  Supreme  Court ; 

To  define  and  punish  piracies  and  felonies  committed  on  the  high  seas,  and 
offenses  against  the  law  of  nations  ; 

To  declare  war,  grant  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal,  and  make  rules  con- 
cerning captures  on  land  and  water  ; 

To  raise  and  support  armies,  but  no  appropriation  of  money  to  that  use  shall 
be  for  a  longer  term  than  two  years  ; 

To  provide  and  maintain  a  navy  ; 

To  make  rules  for  the  government  and  regulation  of  the  land  and  naval 
forces  ; 

To  provide  for  calling  forth  the  militia  to  execute  the  laws  of  the  Union, 
suppress  insurrections,  and  repel  invasions  ; 

To  provide  for  organizing,  arming,  and  disciplining  the  militia,  and  for 
governing  such  part  of  them  as  may  be  employed  in  the  service  of  the  United 
States,  reserving  to  the  States  respectively  the  appointment  of  the  officers,  and 
the  authority  of  training  the  militia  according  to  the  discipline  prescribed  by 
Congress; 

To  exercise  exclusive  legislation  in  all  cases  whatsoever  over  such  district  (not 
exceeding  ten  miles  square)  as  may,  by  cession  of  particular  States,  and  the 
acceptance  of  Congress,  become  the  seat  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States, 
and  to  exercise  like  authority  over  all  places  purchased  by  the  consent  of  the 
legislature  of  the  State  in  which  the  same  shall  be,  for  the  erection  of  forts, 
magazines,  arsenals,  dock-yards,  and  other  needful  buildings  ;  and — 

To  make  all  laws  which  shall  be  necessary  and  proper  for  carrying  into 
execution  the  foregoing  powers,  and  all  other  power  vested  by  this  Constitu- 


APPENDIX   D.  169 

tion  in  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  or  in  any  department  or  officer 
thereof. 

Sec.  9.  The  migration  or  importation  of  such  persons  as  any  of  the  States 
now  existing  shall  think  proper  to  admit,  shall  not  be  prohibited  by  the  Con- 
gress prior  to  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  eight,  but  a  tax  or 
duty  may  be  imposed  on  such  importation,  not  exceeding  ten  dollars  for  each, 
person. 

The  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  shall  not  be  suspended,  unless 
when  in  cases  of  rebellion  or  invasion  the  public  safety  may  require  it. 

No  bill  of  attainder  or  ex  post  facto  law  shall  be  passed. 

No  capitation  or  other  direct  tax  shall  be  laid,  unless  in  proportion  to  the 
census  or  enumeration  hereinbefore  directed  to  be  taken. 

No  tax  or  duty  shall  be  laid  on  articles  exported  from  any  State. 

No  preference  shall  be  given  by  any  regulation  of  commerce  or  revenue  to 
the  ports  of  one  State  over  those  of  another  ;  nor  shall  vessels  bound  to  or 
from  one  State,  be  obliged  to  enter,  clear,  or  pay  duties  in  another. 

No  money  shall  be  drawn  from  the  treasury,  but  m  consequence  of  appro- 
priations made  by  law  ;  and  a  regular  statement  and  account  of  the  receipts  and 
expenditures  of  all  public  money  shall  be  published  from  time  to  time. 

No  title  of  nobility  shall  be  granted  by  the  United  States  ;  and  no  person 
holding  any  office  of  profit  or  trust  under  them,  shall,  without  the  consent  of 
the  Congress,  accept  of  any  present,  emolument,  office,  or  title,  of  any  kind 
whatever,  from  any  king,  prince,  or  foreign  State. 

Sec.  10.  No  State  shall  enter  into  any  treaty,  alliance,  or  confederation  ; 
grant  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal ;  coin  money  ;  emit  bills  of  credit ;  make 
anything  but  gold  and  silver  coin  a  tender  in  payment  of  debts  ;  pass  any  bill 
of  attainder,  ex  post  facto  law,  or  law  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts,  or 
grant  any  title  of  nobility. 

No  State  sh-all,  without  the  consent  of  the  Congress,  lay  any  imposts  or 
duties  on  imports  or  exports,  except  what  may  be  absolutely  necessary  for 
executing  its  inspection  laws  ;  and  the  net  produce  of  all  duties  and  imposts 
laid  by  any  State  on  imports  or  exports,  shall  be  for  the  use  of  the  treasury  of 
the  United, States  ;  and  all  such  laws  shall  be  subject  to  the  revision  and  control 
of  the  Congress. 

No  State  shall,  without  the  consent  of  Congress,  lay  any  duty  on  tonnage, 
keep  troops  or  ships  of  war  in  time  of  peace,  enter  into  any  agreement  or  com- 
pact with  another  State,  or  with  a  foreign  power,  or  engage  in  war,  unless 
actually  invaded,  or  in  such  imminent  danger  as  will  not  admit  of  delay. 

Article  II. 

Section  i.  The  executive  power  shall  be  vested  in  a  President  of  the 
United  States  of  America.  He  shall  hold  his  office  during  the  term  of  four 
years,  and,  together  with  the  Vice-President  chosen  for  the  same  term,  be 
elected  as  follows  :  — 

Each  State  shall  appoint,  in  such  manner  as  the  legislature  thereof  may 


170  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    AND    RELIGION. 

direct,  a  number  of  electors,  equal  to  the  whole  number  of  senators  and  repre- 
sentatives to  which  the  State  maybe  entitled  in  the  Congress  ;  but  no  senator  or 
representatives,  or  persons  holding  an  office  of  trust  or  profit  under  the  United 
States,  shall  be  appointed  an  elector. 

The  Congress  may  determine  the  time  of  choosing  the  electors,  and  the 
day  on  which  they  shall  give  their  votes ;  which  day  shall  be  the  same 
throughout  the  United  States. 

No  person,  except  a  natural-born  citizen,  or  a  citizen  of  the  United  States 
at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  this  Constitution,  shall  be  eligible  to  the  office 
of  President ;  neither  shall  any  person  be  eligible  to  that  office  who  shall  not 
have  attained  to  the  age  of  thirty-five  years,  and  been  fourteen  years  a  resident 
within   the  United   States. 

In  case  of  the  removal  of  the  President  from  office,  or  of  his  death,  resigna- 
tion, or  inability  to  discharge  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  said  office,  the  same 
shall  devolve  on  the  Vice-President,  and  the  Congress  may  by  law  provide  for 
the  case  of  removal,  death,  resignation,  or  inability,  both  of  the  President  and 
Vice-President,  declaring  what  officer  shall  then  act  as  President,  and  such 
officer  shall  act  accordingly,  until  the  disability  be  removed,  or  a  President 
shall  be  elected. 

The  President  shall,  at  stated  times,  receive  for  his  services  a  compensation, 
which  shall  neither  be  increased  nor  diminished  during  the  period  for  which  he 
shall  have  been  elected,  and  he  shall  not  receive  within  that  period  any  other 
emolument  from  the  United  States,  or  any  of  them. 

Before  he  enters  on  the  execution  of  his  office,  he  shall  take  the  following 
oath  or  affirmation  :  — 

"  I  do  solemnly  swear  (or  affirm)  that  I  will  faithfully  execute  the  office  of 
President  of  the  United  States,  and  will,  to  the  best  of  my  ability,  preserve, 
protect,  and  defend  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States." 

Sec.  2.  The  President  shall  be  Commander-in-Chief  of  the  army  and 
navy  of  the  United  States,  and  of  the  militia  of  the  several  States,  when 
called  into  the  actual  service  of  the  United  States  ;  he  may  require  the  opinion, 
in  writing,  of  the  principal  officer  in  each  of  the  executive  departments,  upon 
any  subject  relating  to  the  duties  of  their  respective  offices,  and  he  shall  have 
power  to  grant  reprieves  and  pardon  for  offenses  against  the  United  States,  ex- 
cept in  cases  of  impeachment. 

He  shall  have  power,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  to 
make  treaties,  provided  two  thirds  of  the  senators  present  concur  ;  and  he  shall 
nominate,  and  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  shall  appoint, 
ambassadors,  other  public  ministers  and  consuls,  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court, 
and  all  other  officers  of  the  United  States  whose  appointments  are  not  herein 
otherwise  provided  for,  and  which  shall  be  established  by  law  ;  but  the  Con- 
gress may  by  law  vest  the  appointment  of  such  inferior  officers  as  they  think 
proper  in  the  President  alone,  in  the  courts  of  law,  or  in  the  heads  of  depart- 
ments. 


APPENDIX    D.  171 

The  President  shall  have  power  to  fill  up  all  vacancies  that  may  happen 
during  the  recess  of  the  Senate,  by  granting  commissions,  which  shall  expire  at 
the  end  of  their  next  session. 

Sec.  3.  He  shall  from  time  to  time  give  to  the  Congress  information  of  the 
state  of  the  Union,  and  recommend  to  their  consideration  such  measures  as  he 
shall  judge  necessary  and  expedient ;  he  may,  on  extraordinary  occasions,  con- 
vene both  houses,  or  either  of  them,  and  in  case  of  disagreement  between  them, 
with  respect  to  the  time  of  adjournment,  he  may  adjourn  them  to  such  time  as 
he  shall  think  proper  ;  he  shall  receive  ambassadors  and  other  public  ministers; 
he  shall  take  care  that  the  laws  be  faithfully  executed,  and  shall  commission 
all  the  officers  of  the  United  States. 

Sec.  4.  The  President,  Vice-President,  and  all  civil  officers  of  the  United 
States,  shall  be  removed  from  office  on  impeachment  for,  and  conviction  of, 
treason,  bribery,  or  other  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors. 

Article  III. 

Section  i.  The  judicial  power  of  the  United  States  shall  be  vested  in  one 
Supreme  Court,  and  in  such  inferior  courts  as  the  Congress  may  from  time  to 
time  ordain  and  establish.  The  judges,  both  of  the  supreme  and  inferior 
courts,  shall  hold  their  offices  during  good  behavior,  and  shall,  at  stated  times, 
receive  for  their  services  a  compensation  which  shall  not  be  diminished  during 
their  continuance  in  office. 

Sec.  2.  The  judicial  power  shall  extend  to  all  cases,  in  law  and  equity, 
arising  under  this  Constitution,  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  treaties 
made,  or  which  shall  be  made,  under  their  authority  ;  to  all  cases  affecting  am- 
bassadors, other  public  ministers,  and  consuls  ;  to  all  cases  of  admiralty  and 
maritime  jurisdiction  ;  to  controversies  to  which  the  United  States  shall  be  a 
party  ;  to  controversies  between  two  or  more  States  ;  between  a  State  and  citi- 
zens of  another  State  ;  between  citizens  of  different  States  ;  between  citizens 
of  the  same  State  claiming  lands  under  grants  of  different  States,  and  betweea 
a  State,  or  the  citizens  thereof,  and  foreign  States,  citizens,  or  subjects. 

In  all  cases  affecting  ambassadors,  other  public  ministers,  and  consuls,  and 
those  in  which  a  State  shall  be  party,  the  Supreme  Court  shall  have  original 
jurisdiction.  In  all  the  other  cases  before  mentioned,  the  Supreme  Court  shall 
have  appellate  jurisdiction,  both  as  to  law  and  fact,  with  such  exceptions  and 
under  such  regulations  as  the  Congress  shall  make. 

The  trial  of  all  crimes,  except  in  cases  of  impeachment,  shall  be  by  jury ; 
and  such  trial  shall  be  held  in  the  State  where  the  said  crime  shall  have  been 
committed  ;  but  when  not  committed  within  any  State,  the  trial  shall  be  at 
such  place  or  places  as  the  Congress  may  by  law  have  directed. 

Sec.  3,  Treason  against  the  United  States  shall  consist  only  in  levying  war 
against  them,  or  in  adhering  to  their  enemies,  giving  them  aid  and  comfort. 
No  person  shall  be  convicted  of  treason  unless  on  the  testimony  of  two  wit- 
nesses to  the  same  overt  act,  or  on  confession  in  open  court. 


172  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  declare  the  punishment  of  treason,  but 
no  attainder  of  treason  shall  work  corruption  of  blood,  or  forfeiture  except 
during  the  life  of  the  person  attainted. 

Article  IV. 

Section  i.  Full  faith  and  credit  shall  be  given  in  each  State  to  the  public 
acts,  records,  and  judicial  proceedings  of  every  other  State.  And  the  Con- 
gress may  by  general  laws  prescribe  the  manner  in  which  such  acts,  records, 
and  proceedings  shall  be  proved,  and  the  effect  thereof. 

Sec.  2.  The  citizens  of  each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all  privileges  and 
immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several  States. 

A  person  charged  in  any  State  with  treason,  felony,  or  other  crime,  who 
shall  flee  from  justice,  and  be  found  in  another  State,  shall  on  demand  of  the 
executive  authority  of  the  State  from  which  he  fled,  be  delivered  up,  to  be  re- 
moved to  the  State  having  jurisdiction  of  the  crime. 

No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State,  under  the  laws  thereof, 
escaping  into  another,  shall,  in  consequence  of  any  law  or  regulation  therein, 
be  discharged  from  such  service  or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up  on  claim  of 
the  party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may  be  due. 

Sec.  3.  New  States  may  be  admitted  by  the  Congress  into  this  Union  ;  but 
no  new  State  shall  be  formed  or  erected  within  the  jurisdiction  of  any  other 
State  ;  nor  any  State  be  formed  by  the  junction  of  two  or  more  States,  or  parts 
of  States,  without  the  consent  of  the  legislatures  of  the  States  concerned,  as 
well  as  of  the  Congress. 

The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  dispose  of  and  make  all  needful  rules 
and  regulations  respecting  the  territory  or  other  property  belonging  to  the 
United  States  ;  and  nothing  in  this  Constitution  shall  be  so  construed  as  to 
prejudice  any  claims  of  the  United  States,  or  of  any  particular  State. 

Sec.  4.  The  United  States  shall  guarantee  to  every  State  in  this  Union  a 
republican  form  of  government,  and  shall  protect  each  of  them  against  in- 
vasion, and,  on  application  of  the  legislature  or  of  the  executive  (when  the 
legislature  cannot  be  convened),  against  domestic  violence. 

Article  V. 

The  Congress,  whenever  two  thirds  of  both  houses  shall  deem  it  necessary, 
shall  propose  amendments  to  this  Constitution,  or,  on  the  application  of  the 
legislatures  of  two  thirds  of  the  several  States,  shall  call  a  convention  for  pro- 
posing amendments,  which,  in  either  case,  shall  be  valid,  to  all  intents  and 
purposes,  as  part  of  this  Constitution,  when  ratified  by  the  legislatures  of 
three  fourths  of  the  several  States,  or  by  conventions  in  three  fourths  thereof, 
as  the  one  or  the  other  mode  of  ratification  may  be  proposed  by  the  Congress ; 
provided,  that  no  amendment  which  may  be  made  prior  to  the  year  one 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  eight  shall  in  any  manner  affect  the  first  and 
fourth  clauses  in  the  ninth  section  of  the  first  Article,  and  that  no  State, 
without  its  consent,  shall  be  deprived  of  its  equal  suffrage  in  the  Senate. 


APPENDIX     D.  173^^ 

Article  VI. 

All  debts  contracted  and  engagements  entered  into  before  the  adoption  of 
the  Constitution,  shall  be  as  valid  against  the  United  States  under  this  Consti- 
tution as  under  the  Confederation. 

This  Constitution,  and  the  laws  of  the  United  States  which  shall  be  made 
in  pursuance  thereof,  and  all  treaties  made,  or  which  shall  be  made,  under  the 
authority  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land  ;  and  the 
judges  in  every  State  shall  be  bound  thereby,  anything  in  the  Constitution  or 
laws  of  any  State  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

The  senators  and  representatives  before  mentioned,  and  the  members  of 
the  several  State  legislatures,  and  all  executive  and  judicial  officers,  both  of 
the  United  States  and  of  the  several  States,  shall  be  bound  by  oath  or  affirma- 
tion to  support  this  Constitution  ;  but  no  religious  test  shall  ever  be  required 
as  a  qualification  to  any  office  or  public  trust  under  the  United  States. 

Article  VII. 

The  ratification  of  the  conventions  of  nine  States  shall  be  sufficient  for  the 
establishment  of  this  Constitution  between  the  States  so  ratifying  the  same. 


AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  CONSTITUTION. 
Article  i. 
Congress  shall  make  no  law  respecting  an  establishment  of  religion,  or  pro- 
hibiting the  free  exercise  thereof ;  or  abridging  the  freedom  of  speech,  or  of 
the  press  ;  or  the  right  of  the  people  peaceably  to  assemble,  and  to  petition 
the  Government  for  a  redress  of  grievances. 

Article  II. 
A  well-regulated  militia  being  necessary  to  the  security  of  a  free  State,  the 
right  of  the  people  to  keep  and  bear  arms  shall  not  be  infringed. 

Article  III. 
No  soldier  shall,  in  time  of  peace,  be  quartered  in  any  house  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  owner,  nor  in  time  of  war,  but  in  a  manner  to  be  prescribed  by 
law. 

Article  IV. 
The  right  of  the  people  to  be  secure  in  their  persons,  houses,  papers,  and 
effects,  against  unreasonable  searches  and  seizures,  shall  not  be  violated  ;  and 
no  warrants  shall  issue  but  upon  probable  cause,  supported  by  oath  or  affirma- 
tion, and  particularly  describing  the  place  to  be  searched,  and  the  persons  or 
things  to  be  seized. 

Article  V. 
No  person  shall  be  held  to  answer  for  a  capital  or  otherwise  infamous  crime, 
unless  on  a  presentment  or  indictment  of  a  Grand  Jury,  except  in  cases  arising 
in  the  land  or  naval  forces,  or  in  the  militia,  when  in  actual  service,  in  time  of 


174     .  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

war  and  public  danger  ;  nor  shall  any  person  be  subject  for  the  same  offense  to 
be  twice  put  in  jeopardy  of  life  or  limb,  nor  shall  be  compelled  in  any 
criminal  case  to  be  a  witness  against  himself  ;  nor  to  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty, 
or  property,  without  due  process  of  law  ;  nor  shall  private  property  be  taken 
for  public  use  without  just  compensation. 

Article  VI. 
In  all  criminal  prosecutions,  the  accused  shall  enjoy  the  right  to  a  speedy 
and  public  trial,  by  an  impartial  jury  of  the  State  and  district  wherein  the 
crime  shall  have  been  commixed,  which  district  shall  have  been  previously 
ascertained  by  law,  and  to  be  informed  of  the  nature  and  cause  of  the  accusa- 
tion ;  to  be  confronted  with  the  witnesses  against  him  ;  to  have  compulsory 
process  for  obtaining  witnesses  in  his  favor,  and  to  have  the  assistance  of  coun- 
sel for  his  defense. 

Article  VII. 

In  suits  at  common  law,  where  the  value  in  controversy  shall  exceed  twenty 
dollars,  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  shall  be  preserved,  and  no  fact  tried  by  a 
jury  shall  be  otherwise  re-exammed  in  any  court  of  the  United  States  than  ac- 
cording to  the  rules  of  the  common  law. 

Article  VIII. 
Excessive  bail   shall  not  be  required,  nor  excessive  fines  be  imposed,  nor 
<:ruel  and  unusual  punishments  inflicted. 

Article  IX. 
The  enumeration  in   the   Constitution  of  certain    rights  shall  not  be  con- 
strued to  deny  or  disparage  others  retained  by  the  people. 

Article  X. 

The  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States  by  the  Constitution,  nor  pro- 
hibited by  it  to  the  States,  are  reserved  to  the  States  respectively,  or  to  the 
people. 

Article  XI. 

The  judicial  power  of  the  United  States  shall  not  be  construed  to  extend  to 
any  suit  in  law  or  equity,  commenced  or  prosecuted  against  one  of  the  United 
States  by  citizens  of  another  State,  or  by  citizens  or  subjects  of  any  foreign 
State. 

Article  XII. 

The  electors  shall  meet  in  their  respective  States,  and  vote  by  ballot  for 
President  and  Vice-President,  one  of  whom,  at  least,  shall  not  be  an  inhabit- 
ant of  the  same  State  with  themselves.  They  shall  name  in  their  ballots  the 
person  voted  for  as  President,  and  in  distinct  ballots  the  person  voted  for  as 
Vice-President;  and  they  shall  make  distinct  lists  of  all  persons  voted  for  as 
President,  and  of  all  persons  voted  for  as  Vice-President,  and  of  the  number 


APPENDIX     D.  175 

of  votes  for  each,  which  lists  they  shall  sign  and  certify,  and  transmit,  sealed, 
to  the  seat  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  directed  to  the  president 
of  the  Senate.  The  president  of  the  Senate  shall,  in  the  presence  of  the  Senate 
and  House  of  Representatives,  open  all  the  certificates,  and  .the  votes  shall  then 
be  counted  ;  the  person  having  the  greatest  number  of  votes  for  President 
shall  be  the  President,  if  such  number  be  a  majority  of  the  whole  number  of 
electors  appointed  ;  and  if  no  person  have  such  majority,  then  from  the 
persons  having  the  highest  numbers,  not  exceeding  three,  on  the  list  of  those 
voted  for  as  President,  the  House  of  Representatives  shall  choose  immediately, 
by  ballot,  the  President.  But  in  choosing  the  President,  the  votes  shall  be 
taken  by  States,  the  representation  from  each  State  having  one  vote  ;  a  quorum 
for  this  purpose  shall  consist  of  a  member  or  members  from  two  thirds  of  the 
States,  and  a  majority  of  all  the  States  shall  be  necessary  to  a  choice.  And  if  the 
House  of  Representatives  shall  not  choose  a  President,  whenever  the  right  of  choice 
shall  devolve  upon  them,  before  the  fourth  day  of  March  next  following,  then  the 
Vice-President  shall  act  as  President,  as  in  the  case  of  the  death  or  other  Con- 
stitutional disability  of  the  President.  The  person  having  the  greatest  number 
of  votes  as  Vice-President  shall  be  the  Vice-President,  if  such  number  be  a  majority 
of  the  whole  number  of  electors  appointed  ;  and  if  no  person  have  a  majority, 
then  from  the  two  highest  numbers  on  the  list,  the  Senate  shall  choose  the 
Vice-President ;  a  quorum  for  the  purpose  shall  consist  of  two  thirds  of  the 
whole  number  of  senators,  and  a  majority  of  the  whole  number  shall  be  neces- 
sary to  a  choice.  But  no  person  Constitutionally  ineligible  to  the  office  of  Pres- 
ident shall  be  eligible  to  that  of  Vice-President  of  the  United  States. 

Article  XIII. 

Section  i.  Neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude,  except  as  a  punishment 
for  crime,  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted,  shall  exist  within 
the  United  States,  or  any  place  subject  to  their  jurisdiction. 

Sec.  2.  Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce  this  article  by  appropriate  leg- 
islation. 

Article  XIV. 
Section  i.  All  persons  born  or  naturalized  in  the  United  States,  and  subject 
to  the  jurisdiction  thereof,  are  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  of  the  State  in 
which  they  reside.  No  State  shall  make  or  enforce  any  law  which  shall  abridge 
the  privileges  or  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  ;  nor  shall  any 
State  deprive  any  person  of  life,  liberty,  or  property  without  due  process  of 
law,  nor  deny  to  any  person  within  its  jurisdiction  the  equal  protection  of  the 
laws. 

Sec.  2.  Representatives  shall  be  apportioned  among  the  several  States  ac- 
cording to  their  respective  numbers,  counting  the  whole  number  of  persons  in 
each  State,  excluding  Indians  not  taxed.  But  when  the  right  to  vote  at  any 
election  for  the  choice  of  electors  for  President  and  Vice-President  of  the 
United  States,  representatives  in  Congress,  the  executive  and  judicial  officers  of 


176  CIVIL    GOVERNMENT   AND    RELIGION. 

a  State,  or  the  members  of  the  legislature  thereof,  is  denied  to  any  of  the  male 
inhabitants  of  such  State  being  twenty-one  years  of  age,  and  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  or  in  any  way  abridged,  except  for  participation  in  rebellion  or 
other  crime,  the  basis  of  representation  therein  shall  be  reduced  in  the  propor- 
tion which  the  number  of  such  male  citizens  shall  bear  to  the  whole  number  of 
male  citizens  twenty-one  years  of  age  in  such  State. 

Sec.  3.  No  person  shall  be  a  senator  or  representative  in  Congress,  or 
elector  of  President  and  Vice-President,  or  hold  any  ofhce,  civil  or  military,  un- 
der the  United  States,  or  under  any  State,  who,  having  previously  taken  an 
oath  as  a  member  of  Congress,  or  as  an  officer  of  the  United  States,  or  as  a 
member  of  any  State  legislature,  or  as  an  executive  or  judicial  officer  of  any 
State,  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  shall  have  engaged  in 
insurrection  or  rebellion  against  the  same,  or  given  aid  or  comfort  to  the  ene- 
mies thereof.  But  Congress  may,  by  a  vote  of  two  thirds  of  each  house,  re- 
move such  disability. 

Sec.  4.  The  validity  of  the  public  debt  of  the  United  States  authorized  by 
lavi^,  including  debts  incurred  by  payment  of  pensions  and  bounties  for  services  in 
suppressing  insurrection  or  rebellion,  shall  not  be  questioned.  But  neither 
the  United  States  nor  any  State  shall  assume  or  pay  any  debt  or  obliga- 
tion incurred  in  aid  of  insurrection  or  rebellion  against  the  United  States,  or 
any  claim  for  the  loss  or  emancipation  of  any  slave  ;  but  all  such  debts,  obliga- 
tions, and  claims  shall  be  held  illegal  and  void. 

Sec.  5.  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce,  by  appropriate  legisla- 
tion, the  provisions  of  this  article. 

Article  XV. 
Section  i.  The  right  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  to  vote  shall  not  be 
denied  or  abridged  by  the  United  States,  or  by  any  State,  on  account  of  race, 
color,  or  previous  condition  of  servitude. 

Sec.  2.  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce  this  article  by  appropriate 
legislation. 


mmm^-.:- 


.^^  .- 


'^-"V5;'4S?'^'^^^'^^ 


5363 


sssor? 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


THE  AMERICAN  SENTINEL, 

An  Eight-Page  Weekly  Journal, 


DEVOTED    TO 


The  Defense  of  American  Institutions,  the  Preservation  of  the  United 

States  Constitution  as  It  is,  so  Far  as  Regards  Religion  or 

Religious  Tests,  and  the  Maintenance  of  Civil 

and   Religious   Rights. 


IT    WILL    EVER    BE    UNCOMPROMISINGLY   OPPOSED   TO   ANYTHING   TENDING 
TOWARD   A    UNION    OF   CHURCH   AND   STATE, 

Either  xn  Name  or  in  Fact. 

It  is  well  known  that  there  is  a  large  and  influential  association  in  the  United 
States  bearing  the  name  of  the  "National  Keform  Association,"  which  is  endeavoring 
to  secure  such  a  religious  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  TTnited  States  as  will 
"place  all  Cliristian  laws,  institutions  and  usages,  on  an  undeniable  legal  basis  in  the 
fundamental  law  of  the  land." 

While  there  are  many  persons  in  this  country  who  are  opposed  to,  or  look  with 
»usi>icion  upon,  this  movement,  there  are  few,  outside  of  the  party,  who  realize  what 
the  influence  of  this  amendment  would  be. 

THE  OBJECT  OF  THE  AMEEIOAN  SENTINEL 

Will  be  to  vindicate  the  rights  of  American  citizens,  which,  we  believe,  are  threatened 
by  this  Association.  It  will  appeal  to  the  very  fundamental  principles  of  our  Govern- 
ment, and  point  out  the  con-sequences  which  would  be  sure  to  follow  should  they  secure 
the  desired  amendment  to  the  Constitution. 

Every  position  taken  will  be  carefully  guarded  and  fortified  hy  sound  argument. 
Due  respect  will  always  be  paid  to  the  opinions  of  others,  but  the  rights  of  conscience 
will  be  fearlessly  maintained. 


OI^BELlwIS 


l^ingle  Copy*  per  Year, 


$1.00. 


Address, 


Specimen   copies  free, 

AMERICA]*   ii^ISlVTINEli, 


1069  Castro  St.,  Oakland,  Cal.;   43  Bond  Street,  New  York;    28  College  Place,  Chicago,  lU . 


VIEWS  OF  NATIONAL  REFORM, 

Series  One. — 151  pages;  Size  4^x73^  inches,  price,  15  cents. 

This  pamphlet  contains  thirteen  treatises  on  the  various  phases  ot  the  National 
Reform  Movement.  The  following  are  the  subjects  of  the  various  chapters,  each  of 
which  is  complete  in  itself:  Religious  I,iberty;  National  Reform  is  Church  and  State: 
The  Republic  of  Israel;  Purity  of  National  Religion;  What  Think  Ye  of  Christ?  Evils 
of  Religious  IvCgislatior;  The  American  Papacy;  National  Reform  and  Rights  of  Con- 
tcience;  Bold  and  Base  Avowal;  National  Reform  Movement  an  Absurdity;  The 
Salem  Witchcraft;  National  Reformed  Constitiition  and  the  American  Hierarchy; 
National  Reformed  Presbyterianism.  Address, 

AMERICAN    SEWTIXEIi, 

1059  Ca.stro  St..  Ofikinnd  Cal.;  43  Bond  St.,  New  York;  28  College  Place,  Chicago,  111. 


